Skip to main content

Full text of ""The Two Babylons""

See other formats

ie Iwo Babylons 

by Alexander Hislop 

The Two Babylons 
or The Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod 

and His Wife 
By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop 

First published as a pamphlet in 1853 --greatly expanded in 1858 


Introduction 3 

Chapter I 4 

Distinctive Character of the Two Systems 4 

Chapter II 

Objects of Worship 13 

Section I. Trinity in Unity 13 

Section II. The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child 19 

Sub-Section I. The Child in Assyria 22 

Sub-Section II. The Child in Egypt 40 

Sub-Section III. The Child in Greece 47 

Sub-Section IV. The Death of the Child 55 

Sub-Section V. The Deification of the Child 57 

Section III. The Mother of the Child 73 

Chapter III 

Festivals 9 1 

Section I. Christmas and Lady-day 91 

Section II. Easter 101 

Section III. The Nativity of St. John 111 

Section IV. The Feast of the Assumption 121 
See Chapter V, Section IV regarding Cupid (St. Valentine's Day) 

Chapter IV 

Doctrine and Discipline 124 

Section I. Baptismal Regeneration 124 

Section II. Justification by Works 136 

Section III. The Sacrifice of the Mass 146 

Section IV. Extreme Unction 152 

Section V. Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead 154 

Chapter V 

Rites and Ceremonies 156 

Section I. Idol Procession 156 

Section II. Relic Worship 160 

Section III. The Clothing and Crowning of Images 164 

Section IV. The Rosary and the Worship of the Sacred Heart 169 

Section V. Lamps and Wax-Candles 172 

Section VI. The Sign of the Cross 177 

Chapter VI 

Religious Orders 183 

Section I. The Sovereign Pontiff 183 

Section II. Priests, Monks, and Nuns 194 

Chapter VII 

The Two Developments Historically and Prophetically Considered 199 

Section I. The Great Red Dragon 199 

Section II. The Beast from the Sea 218 

Section III. The Beast from the Earth 229 

Section IV. The Image of the Beast 235 

Section V. The Name of the Beast, the Number of His Name —the Invisible Head of the Papacy 242 

Conclusion 254 


"And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE 

There is this great difference between the works of men and the works of God, that the same 
minute and searching investigation, which displays the defects and imperfections of the one, 
brings out also the beauties of the other. If the most finely polished needle on which the art of 
man has been expended be subjected to a microscope, many inequalities, much roughness and 
clumsiness, will be seen. But if the microscope be brought to bear on the flowers of the field, no 
such result appears. Instead of their beauty diminishing, new beauties and still more delicate, that 
have escaped the naked eye, are forthwith discovered; beauties that make us appreciate, in a way 
which otherwise we could have had little conception of, the full force of the Lord's saying, 
"Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: and yet I say 
unto you, That even Solomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed like one of these." The same law 
appears also in comparing the Word of God and the most finished productions of men. There are 
spots and blemishes in the most admired productions of human genius. But the more the 
Scriptures are searched, the more minutely they are studied, the more their perfection appears; 
new beauties are brought into light every day; and the discoveries of science, the researches of 
the learned, and the labours of infidels, all alike conspire to illustrate the wonderful harmony of 
all the parts, and the Divine beauty that clothes the whole. 

If this be the case with Scripture in general, it is especially the case with prophetic Scripture. As 
every spoke in the wheel of Providence revolves, the prophetic symbols start into still more bold 
and beautiful relief. This is very strikingly the case with the prophetic language that forms the 
groundwork and corner-stone of the present work. There never has been any difficulty in the 
mind of any enlightened Protestant in identifying the woman "sitting on seven mountains," and 
having on her forehead the name written, "Mystery, Babylon the Great," with the Roman 
apostacy. "No other city in the world has ever been celebrated, as the city of Rome has, for its 
situation on seven hills. Pagan poets and orators, who had rot thought of elucidating prophecy, 
have alike characterised it as 'the seven hilled city.'" Thus Virgil refers to it: "Rome has both 
become the most beautiful (city) in the world, and alone has surrounded for herself seven heights 
with a wall." Propertius, in the same strain, speaks of it (only adding another trait, which 
completes the Apocalyptic picture) as "The lofty city on seven hills, which governs the whole 
world." Its "governing the whole world" is just the counterpart of the Divine statement-- "which 
reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18). To call Rome the city "of the seven hills" was 
by its citizens held to be as descriptive as to call it by its own proper name. Hence Horace speaks 
of it by reference to its seven hills alone, when he addresses, "The gods who have set their 
affections on the seven hills." Martial, in like manner, speaks of "The seven dominating 
mountains." In times long subsequent, the same kind of language was in current use; for when 
Symmachus, the prefect of the city, and the last acting Pagan Pontifex Maximus, as the Imperial 
substitute, introduces by letter one friend of his to another, he calls him "De septem montibus 
virum"--"a man from the seven mountains," meaning thereby, as the commentators interpret it, 
"Civem Romanum, "A Roman Citizen." Now, while this characteristic of Rome has ever been 
well marked and defined, it has always been easy to show, that the Church which has its seat and 
headquarters on the seven hills of Rome might most appropriately be called "Babylon," 
inasmuch as it is the chief seat of idolatry under the New Testament, as the ancient Babylon was 
the chief seat of idolatry under the Old. But recent discoveries in Assyria, taken in connection 

with the previously well-known but ill- understood history and mythology of the ancient world, 
demonstrate that there is a vast deal more significance in the name Babylon the Great than this. It 
has been known all along that Popery was baptised Paganism; but God is now making it 
manifest, that the Paganism which Rome has baptised is, in all its essential elements, the very 
Paganism which prevailed in the ancient literal Babylon, when Jehovah opened before Cyrus the 
two- leaved gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron. 

That new and unexpected light, in some way or other, should be cast, about this very period, on 
the Church of the grand Apostacy, the very language and symbols of the Apocalypse might have 
prepared us to anticipate. In the Apocalyptic visions, it is just before the judgment upon her that, 
for the first time, John sees the Apostate Church with the name Babylon the Great "written upon 
her forehead" (Rev 17:5). What means the writing of that name "on the forehead"! Does it not 
naturally indicate that, just before judgment overtakes her, her Eal character was to be so 
thoroughly developed, that everyone who has eyes to see, who has the least spiritual 
discernment, would be compelled, as it were, on ocular demonstration, to recognise the 
wonderful fitness of the title which the Spirit of God had affixed to her. Her judgment is now 
evidently hastening on; and just as it approaches, the Providence of God, conspiring with the 
Word of God, by light pouring in from all quarters, makes it more and more evident that Rome is 
in very deed the Babylon of the Apocalypse; that the essential character of her system, the grand 
objects of her worship, her festivals, her doctrine and discipline, her rites and ceremonies, her 
priesthood and their orders, have all been derived from ancient Babylon; and, finally, that the 
Pope himself is truly and properly the lineal representative of Belshazzar. In the warfare that has 
been waged against the domineering pretensions of Rome, it has too often been counted enough 
merely to meet and set aside her presumptuous boast, that she is the mother and mistress of all 
churches--the one Catholic Church, out of whose pale there is no salvation. If ever there was 
excuse for such a mode of dealing with her, that excuse will hold no longer. If the position I have 
laid down can be maintained, she must be stripped of the name of a Christian Church 
altogether; for if it was a Church of Christ that was convened on that night, when the pontiff- 
king of Babylon, in the midst of his thousand lords, "praised the gods of gold, and of silver, and 
of wood, and of stone" (Dan 5:4), then the Church of Rome is entitled to the name of a Christian 
Church; but not otherwise. This to some, no doubt, will appear a very startling position; but it is 
one which it is the object of this work to establish; and let the reader judge for himself, whether I 
do not bring ample evidence to substantiate my position. 

Chapter I 
Distinctive Character of the Two Systems 

In leading proof of the Babylonian character of the Papal Church the first point to which I solicit 
the reader's attention, is the character of MYSTERY which attaches alike to the modern Roman 
and the ancient Babylonian systems. The gigantic system of moral corruption and idolatry 
described in this passage under the emblem of a woman with a "GOLDEN CUP IN HER 
HAND" (Rev 17:4), "making all nations DRUNK with the wine of her fornication" (Rev 17:2; 
18:3), is divinely called "MYSTERY, Babylon the Great" (Rev 17:5). That Paul's "MYSTERY 
of iniquity," as described in 2 Thessalonians 2:7, has its counterpart in the Church of Rome, no 
man of candid mind, who has carefully examined the subject, can easily doubt. Such was the 
impression made by that account on the mind of the great Sir Matthew Hale, no mean judge of 
evidence, that he used to say, that if the apostolic description were inserted in the public "Hue 

and Cry" any constable in the realm would be warranted in seizing, wherever he found him, the 
bishop of Rome as the head of that "MYSTERY of iniquity." Now, as the system here described 
is equally characterised by the name of "MYSTERY," it may be presumed that both passages 
refer to the same system. But the language applied to the New Testament Babylon, as the reader 
cannot fail to see, naturally leads us back to the Babylon of the ancient world. As the 
Apocalyptic woman has in her hand A CUP, wherewith she intoxicates the nations, so was it 
with the Babylon of old. Of that Babylon, while in all its glory, the Lord thus spake, in 
denouncing its doom by the prophet Jeremiah: "Babylon hath been a GOLDEN CUP in the 
Lord's hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the 
nations are mad" (Jer 51:7). Why this exact similarity of language in regard to the two systems? 
The natural inference surely is, that the one stands to the other in the relation of type and 
antitype. Now, as the Babylon of the Apocalypse is characterised by the name of "MYSTERY," 
so the grand distinguishing feature of the ancient Babylonian system was the Chaldean 
"MYSTERIES," that formed so essential a part of that system. And to these mysteries, the very 
language of the Hebrew prophet, symbolical though of course it is, distinctly alludes, when he 
speaks of Babylon as a "golden CUP." To drink of "mysterious beverages," says Salverte, was 
indispensable on the part of all who sought initiation in these Mysteries. These "mysterious 
beverages" were composed of 'ivine, honey, water, and flour." From the ingredients avowedly 
used, and from the nature of others not avowed, but certainly used, there can be no doubt that 
they were of an intoxicating nature; and till the aspirants had come under their power, till their 
understandings had been dimmed, and their passions excited by the medicated draught, they 
were not duly prepared for what they were either to hear or to see. If it be inquired what was the 
object and design of these ancient "Mysteries," it will be found that there was a wonderful 
analogy between them and that "Mystery of iniquity" which is embodied in the Church of Rome. 
Their primary object was to introduce privately, by little and little, under the seal of secrecy and 
the sanction of an oath, what it would not have been safe all at once and openly to propound. The 
time at which they were instituted proved that this must have been the case. The Chaldean 
Mysteries can be traced up to the days of Semiramis, who lived only a few centuries after the 
flood, and who is known to have impressed upon them the image of her own depraved and 
polluted mind. * 

* AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS compared with JUSTINUS, Historia and 
EUSEBIUS' Chronicle. Eusebius says that Ninus and Semiramis reigned in the 
time of Abraham. 

That beautiful but abandoned queen of Babylon was not only herself a paragon of unbridled lust 
and licentiousness, but in the Mysteries which she had a chief hand in forming, she was 
worshipped as Rhea, the great "MOTHER" of the gods, with such atrocious rites as identified her 
with Venus, the MOTHER of all impurity, and raised the very city where she had reigned to a 
bad eminence among the nations, as the grand seat at once of idolatry and consecrated 
prostitution. * 

* A correspondent has pointed out a reference by Pliny to the cup of Semiramis, 
which fell into the hands of the victorious Cyrus. Its gigantic proportions must 
have made it famous among the Babylonians and the nations with whom they had 
intercourse. It weighed fifteen talents, or 1200 pounds. PLINII, Hist. Nat. 

Fie- 1* 

Woman with cap ** from Babylon,— (KnTO*8 
Biblical Cyeioptrdia.) 

** The shape of the cup in the woman's hand is the same as that of 
the cup held in the hand of the Assyrian kings; and it is held also in 
the very same manner. - See VAUX, pp. 243, 284. 

[A correspondent has pointed out a reference by Pliney to the cup 
of Semiramis, which fell into the hands of the victorius Cyrus. Its 
gigantic proportions must have made it famous among the 
Babylonians and the nations with whom they had intercourse. It 
weight fifteen talents, or 1200 pounds. - Plinii, Hist. Nat., lib. 
xxxiii. cap. 15] 

Thus was this Chaldean queen a fit and remarkable prototype of the "Woman" in the Apocalypse, 
with the golden cup in her hand, and the name on her forehead, "Mystery, Babylon the Great, the 
MOTHER of harlots and abominations of the earth." (Fig. 1 ) The Apocalyptic emblem of the 
Harlot woman with the cup in her hand was even embodied in the symbols of idolatry, derived 
from ancient Babylon, as they were exhibited in Greece; for thus was the Greek Venus originally 
represented, l and it is singular that in our own day, and so far as appears for the first time, the 

Woman with Golden Cup 

In Pausanias we find an account of a goddess represented in the very attitude of the Apocalyptic "Woman." "But of 
this stone [Parian marble] Phidias," says he, "made a statue of Nemesis; and on the head of the goddess there is a 
crown adorned with stags, and images of victory of no great magnitude. In her left hand, too, she holds a branch of 
an ash tree, and in her right A CUP, in which Ethiopians are carved." (PAUSANIAS, Attica) Pausanias declares 
himself unable to assign any reason why "the Ethiopians" were carved on the cup; but the meaning of the Ethiopians 
and the stags too will be apparent to all who read further. We find, however, from statements made in the same 
chapter, that though Nemesis is commonly represented as the goddess of revenge, she must have been also known in 
quite a different character. Thus Pausanias proceeds, commenting on the statue: "But neither has this statue of the 
goddess wings. Among the Smyrneans, however, who possess the most holy images of Nemesis, I perceived 

Roman Church has actually taken this very symbol as her own chosen emblem. In 1825, on 
occasion of the jubilee, Pope Leo XII struck a medal, bearing on the one side his own image, and 
on the other, that of the Church of Rome symbolised as a "Woman," holding in her left hand a 
cross, and in her right a CUP, with the legend around her, "Sedet super universum" "The whole 
world is her seat." ( Fig. 2) Now the period when Semiramis lived,--a period when the patriarchal 
faith was still fresh in the minds of men, when Shem was still alive, * to rouse the minds of the 
faithful to rally around the banner for the truth and cause of God, made it hazardous all at once 
and publicly to set up such a system as was inaugurated by the Babylonian queen. 

Fig. i. 

Woman wttfe cup from Eomi, on reverse ©I medaL -(Eujott'8 Rorw.) 

Elliott's Horae, vol. iv. p. 30 

* For the age of Shem see Genesis 11:10, 11. According to this, Shem lived 502 
years after the flood, that is, according to the Hebrew chronology, till BC 1846. 
The age of Ninus, the husband of Semiramis, as stated in a former note, according 
to Eusebius, synchronised with that of Abraham, who was born BC 1996. It was 
only about nine years, however, before the end of the reign of Ninus, that the birth 
of Abraham is said to have taken place. (SYNCELLUS) Consequently, on this 
view, the reign of Ninus must have terminated, according to the usual chronology, 
about BC 1987. Clinton, who is of high authority in chronology, places the reign 

afterwards that these statues had wings. For, as this goddess principally pertains to lovers, on this account they may 
be supposed to have given wings to Nemesis, as well as to love," i.e., Cupid. The giving of wings to Nemesis, the 
goddess who "principally pertained to lovers," because Cupid, the god of love, bore them, implies that, in the 
opinion of Pausanias, she was the counterpart of Cupid, or the goddess of love— that is, Venus. While this is the 
inference naturally to be deduced from the words of Pausanias, we find it confirmed by an express statement of 
Photius, speaking of the statue of Rhamnusian Nemesis: "She was at first erected in the form of Venus, and 
therefore bore also the branch of an apple tree." (PHOTII, Lexicon) Though a goddess of love and a goddess of 
revenge might seem very remote in their characters from one another, yet it is not difficult to see how this must have 
come about. The goddess who was revealed to the initiated in the Mysteries, in the most alluring manner, was also 
known to be most unmerciful and unrelenting in taking vengeance upon those who revealed these Mysteries; for 
every such one who was discovered was unsparingly put to death. (POTTER'S Antiquities, "Eleusinia") Thus, then, 
the cup-bearing goddess was at once Venus, the goddess of licentiousness, and Nemesis, the stern and unmerciful 
one to all who rebelled against her authority. How remarkable a type of the woman, whom John saw, described in 
one aspect as the "Mother of harlots," and in another as "Drunken with the blood of the saints" ! 

of Ninus somewhat earlier. In his Fasti Hellenici he makes his age to have been 
BC 2182. Layard (in his Nineveh and its Remains) subscribes to this opinion. 
Semiramis is said to have survived her husband forty-two years. (SYNCELL) 
Whatever view, therefore, be adopted in regard to the age of Ninus, whether that 
of Eusebius, or that at which Clinton and Layard have arrived, it is evident that 
Shem long survived both Ninus and his wife. Of course, this argument proceeds 
on the supposition of the correctness of the Hebrew chronology. For conclusive 
evidence on that subject. 2 

Hebrew Chronology 

Dr. Hales has attempted to substitute the longer chronology of the Septuagint for the Hebrew chronology. But this 
implies that the Hebrew Church, as a body, was not faithful to the trust committed to it in respect to the keeping of 
the Scriptures, which seems distinctly opposed to the testimony of our Lord in reference to these Scriptures (John 
5:39; 10:35), and also to that of Paul (Rom 3:2), where there is not the least hint of unfaithfulness. Then we can find 
a reason that might induce the translators of the Septuagint in Alexandria to 83 lengthen out the period of the ancient 
history of the world; we can find no reason to induce the Jews in Palestine to shorten it. The Egyptians had long, 
fabulous eras in their history, and Jews dwelling in Egypt might wish to make their sacred history go as far back as 
they could, and the addition of just one hundred years in each case, as in the Septuagint, to the ages of the patriarchs, 
looks wonderfully like an intentional forgery; whereas we cannot imagine why the Palestine Jews should make any 
change in regard to this matter at all. It is well known that the Septuagint contains innumerable gross errors and 

Bunsen casts overboard all Scriptural chronology whatever, whether Hebrew, Samaritan, or Greek, and sets up the 
unsupported dynasties of Manetho, as if they were sufficient to over-ride the Divine word as to a question of 
historical fact. But, if the Scriptures are not historically true, we can have no assurance of their truth at all. Now it is 
worthy of notice that, though Herodotus vouches for the fact that at one time there were no fewer than twelve 
contemporaneous kings in Egypt, Manetho, as observed by Wilkinson, has made no allusion to this, but has made 
his Thinite, Memphite, and Diospolitan dynasties of kings, and a long etcetera of other dynasties, all successive! 

The period over which the dynasties of Manetho extend, beginning with Menes, the first king of these dynasties, is 
in itself a very lengthened period, and surpassing all rational belief. But Bunsen, not content with this, expresses his 
very confident persuasion that there had been long lines of powerful monarchs in Upper and Lower Egypt, "during a 
period of from two to four thousand years," even before the reign of Menes. In coming to such a conclusion, he 
plainly goes upon the supposition that the name Mizraim, which is the Scriptural name of the land of Egypt, and is 
evidently derived from the name of the son of Ham, and grandson of Noah, is not, after all, the name of aperson, 
but the name of the united kingdom formed under Menes out of "the two Misr," "Upper and Lower Egypt," which 
had previously existed as separate kingdoms, the name Misrim, according to him, being a plural word. This 
derivation of the name Mizraim, or Misrim, as a plural word, infallibly leaves the impression that Mizraim, the son 
of Ham, must be only a mythical personage. But there is no real reason for thinking that Mizraim is a plural word, or 
that it became the name of "the land of Ham," from any other reason than because that land was also the land of 
Ham's son. Mizraim, as it stands in the Hebrew of Genesis, without the points, is Metzrim; and Metzr-im signifies 
"The encloser or embanker of the sea" (the word being derived from Im, the same as Yam, "the sea," and Tzr, "to 
enclose," with the formative M prefixed). 

If the accounts which ancient history has handed down to us of the original state of Egypt be correct, the first man 
who formed a settlement there must have done the very thing implied in this name. Diodorus Siculus tells us that, in 
primitive times, that which, when he wrote, "was Egypt, was said to have been not a country, but one universal sea." 
Plutarch also says (De hide) that Egypt was sea. From Herodotus, too, we have very striking evidence to the same 
effect. He excepts the province of Thebes from his statement; but when it is seen that "the province of Thebes" did 
not belong to Mizraim, or Egypt proper, which, says the author of the article "Mizraim" in Biblical Cyclopoedia, 
"properly denotes Lower Egypt"; the testimony of Herodotus will be seen entirely to agree with that of Diodorus and 
Plutarch. His statement is, that in the reign of the first king, "the whole of Egypt (except the province of Thebes) was 
an extended marsh. No part of that which is now situate beyond the lake Moeris was to be seen, the distance 
between which lake and the sea is a journey of seven days." Thus all Mizraim or Lower Egypt was under water. 

We know, from the statements in Job, that among patriarchal tribes that had nothing whatever to 
do with Mosaic institutions, but which adhered to the pure faith of the patriarchs, idolatry in any 
shape was held to be a crime, to be visited with signal and summary punishment on the heads of 
those who practised it. "If I beheld the sun," said Job, "when it shined, or the moon walking in 
brightness; and my heart hath been secretly enticed, and * my mouth hath kissed my hand; this 
also were an iniquity to be punished by the judge; for I should have denied the God that is 
above" (Job 31:26-28). 

* That which I have rendered "and" is in the authorised version "or," but there is 
no reason for such a rendering, for the word in the original is the very same as that 
which connects the previous clause, "and my heart," &c. 

Now if this was the case in Job's day, much more must it have been the case at the earlier period 
when the Mysteries were instituted. It was a matter, therefore, of necessity, if idolatry were to be 

This state of the country arose from the unrestrained overflowing of the Nile, which, to adopt the language of 
Wilkinson, "formerly washed the foot of the sandy mountains of the Lybian chain." Now, before Egypt could be fit 
for being a suitable place for human abode— before it could become what it afterwards did become, one of the most 
fertile of all lands, it was indispensable that bounds should be set to the overflowings of the sea (for by the very 
name of the Ocean, or Sea, the Nile was anciently called— DIODORUS), and that for this purpose great 
embankments should enclose or confine its waters. If Ham's son, then, led a colony into Lower Egypt and settled it 
there, this very work he must have done. And what more natural than that a name should be given him in memory of 
his great achievement? and what name so exactly descriptive as Metzr-im, "The embanker of the sea," or as the 
name is found at this day applied to all Egypt (WILKINSON), Musr or Misr? Names always tend to abbreviation in 
the mouths of a people, and, therefore, "The land of Misr" is evidently just "The land of the embanker." From this 
statement it follows that the "embanking of the sea"— the "enclosing" of it within certain bounds, was the making of 
it as a river, so far as Lower Egypt was concerned. Viewing the matter in this light, what a meaning is there in the 
Divine language in Ezekiel 29:3, where judgments are denounced against the king of Egypt, the representative of 
Metzr-im, "The embanker of the sea," for his pride: "Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh, king of Egypt, the great 
dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which saith, My river is mine own, I have made it for myself." 

When we turn to what is recorded of the doings of Menes, who, by Herodotus, Manetho, and Diodorus alike, is 
made the first historical king of Egypt, and compare what is said of him, with this simple explanation of the meaning 
of the name of Mizraim, how does the one cast light on the other? Thus does Wilkinson describe the great work 
which entailed fame on Menes, "who," says he, "is allowed by universal consent to have been the first sovereign of 
the country." "Having diverted the course of the Nile, which formerly washed the foot of the sandy mountains of the 
Lybian chain, he obliged it to run in the centre of the valley, nearly at an equal distance between the two parallel 
ridges of mountains which border it on the east and west; and built the city of Memphis in the bed of the ancient 
channel. This change was effected by constructing a dyke about a hundred stadia above the site of the projected city, 
whose lofty mounds and strong EMBANKMENTS turned the water to the eastward, and effectually CONFINED 
the river to its new bed. The dyke was carefully kept in repair by succeeding kings; and, even as late as the Persian 
invasion, a guard was always maintained there, to overlook the necessary repairs, and to watch over the state of the 
embankments." {Egyptians) 

When we see that Menes, the first of the acknowledged historical kings of Egypt, accomplished that very 
achievement which is implied in the name of Mizraim, who can resist the conclusion that menes and Mizraim are 
only two different names for the same person? And if so, what becomes of Bunsen's vision of powerful dynasties of 
sovereigns "during a period of from two to four thousand years" before the reign of Menes, by which all Scriptural 
chronology respecting Noah and his sons was to be upset, when it turns out that Menes must have been Mizraim, the 
grandson of Noah himself? Thus does Scripture contain, within its own bosom, the means of vindicating itself; and 
thus do its minutest statements, even in regard to matters of fact, when thoroughly understood, shed surprising light 
on the dark parts of the history of the world. 


brought in, and especially such foul idolatry as the Babylonian system contained in its bosom, 
that it should be done stealthily and in secret. * 

* It will be seen by-and-by what cogent reason there was, in point of fact, for the 
profoundest secrecy in the matter. See Chapter II 

Even though introduced by the hand of power, it might have produced a revulsion, and violent 
attempts might have been made by the uncorrupted portion of mankind to put it down; and at all 
events, if it had appeared at once in all its hideousness, it would have alarmed the consciences of 
men, and defeated the very object in view. That object was to bind all mankind in blind and 
absolute submission to a hierarchy entirely dependent on the sovereigns of Babylon. In the 
carrying out of this scheme, all knowledge, sacred and profane, came to be monopolised by the 
priesthood, who dealt it out to those who were initiated in the "Mysteries" exactly as they saw fit, 
according as the interests of the grand system of spiritual despotism they had to administer might 
seem to require. Thus the people, wherever the Babylonian system spread, were bound neck and 
heel to the priests. The priests were the only depositaries of religious knowledge; they only had 
the true tradition by which the writs and symbols of the public religion could be interpreted; and 
without blind and implicit submission to them, what was necessary for salvation could not be 
known. Now compare this with the early history of the Papacy, and with its spirit and modus 
operandi throughout, and how exact was the coincidence! Was it in a period of patriarchal light 
that the corrupt system of the Babylonian "Mysteries" began? It was in a period of still greater 
light that that unholy and unscriptural system commenced, that has found such rank development 
in the Church of Rome. It began in the very age of the apostles, when the primitive Church was 
in its flower, when the glorious fruits of Pentecost were everywhere to be seen, when martyrs 
were sealing their testimony for the truth with their blood. Even then, when the Gospel shone so 
brightly, the Spirit of God bore this clear and distinct testimony by Paul: "THE MYSTERY OF 
INIQUITY DOTH ALREADY WORK" (2 Thess 2:7). That system of iniquity which then began 
it was divinely foretold was to issue in a portentous apostacy, that in due time would be awfully 
"revealed," and would continue until it should be destroyed "by the breath of the Lord's mouth, 
and consumed by the brightness of His coming." But at its first introduction into the Church, it 
came in secretly and by stealth, with "all DECEIVABLENESS of unrighteousness." It wrought 
"mysteriously" under fair but false pretences, leading men away from the simplicity of the truth 
as it is in Jesus. And it did so sscretly, for the very same reason that idolatry was secretly 
introduced in the ancient Mysteries of Babylon; it was not safe, it was not prudent to do 
otherwise. The zeal of the true Church, though destitute of civil power, would have aroused 
itself, to put the false system and all its abettors beyond the pale of Christianity, if it had 
appeared openly and all at once in all its grossness; and this would have arrested its progress. 
Therefore it was brought in secretly, and by little and little, one corruption being introduced after 
another, as apostacy proceeded, and the backsliding Church became prepared to tolerate it, till it 
has reached the gigantic height we now see, when in almost every particular the system of the 
Papacy is the very antipodes of the system of the primitive Church. Of the gradual introduction 
of all that is now most characteristic of Rome, through the working of the "Mystery of iniquity," 
we have very striking evidence, preserved even by Rome itself, in the inscriptions copied from 
the Roman catacombs. These catacombs are extensive excavations underground in the 
neighbourhood of Rome, in which the Christians, in times of persecution during the first three 
centuries, celebrated their worship, and also buried their dead. On some of the tombstones there 
are inscriptions still to be found, which are directly in the teeth of the now well-known principles 
and practices of Rome. Take only one example: What, for instance, at this day is a more 


distinguishing mark of the Papacy than the enforced celibacy of the clergy? Yet from these 
inscriptions we have most decisive evidence, that even in Rome, there was a time when no such 
system of clerical celibacy was known. Witness the following, found on different tombs: 

1. "To Basilius, the presbyter, and Felicitas, his wife. They made this for themselves." 

2. "Petronia, a priest's wife, the type of modesty. In this place I lay my bones. Spare your tears, 
dear husband and daughter, and believe that it is forbidden to weep for one who lives in God." 
(DR. MAITLAND'S Church in the Catacombs) A prayer here and there for the dead: "May God 
refresh thy spirit," proves that even then the Mystery of iniquity had begun to work; but 
inscriptions such as the above equally show that it had been slowly and cautiously working, --that 
up to the period to which they refer, the Roman Church had not proceeded the length it has done 
now, of absolutely "forbidding its priests to 'marry.'" Craftily and gradually did Rome lay the 
foundation of its system of priestcraft, on which it was afterwards to rear so vast a superstructure. 
At its commencement, "Mystery" was stamped upon its system. 

But this feature of "Mystery" has adhered to it throughout its whole course. When it had once 
succeeded in dimming the light of the Gospel, obscuring the fulness and freeness of the grace of 
God, and drawing away the souls of men from direct and immediate dealings with the One 
Grand Prophet and High Priest of our profession, a mysterious power was attributed to the 
clergy, which gave them "dominion over the faith" of the people--a dominion directly disclaimed 
by apostolic men (2 Cor 1:24), but which, in connection with the confessional, has become at 
least as absolute and complete as was ever possessed by Babylonian priest over those initiated in 
the ancient Mysteries. The clerical power of the Roman priesthood culminated in the erection of 
the confessional. That confessional was itself borrowed from Babylon. The confession required 
of the votaries of Rome is entirely different from the confession prescribed in the Word of God. 
The dictate of Scripture in regard to confession is, "Confess your faults one to another" (James 
5:16), which implies that the priest should confess to the people, as well as the people to the 
priest, if either should sin against the other. This could never have served any purpose of spiritual 
despotism; and therefore, Rome, leaving the Word of God, has had recourse to the Babylonian 
system. In that system, secret confession to the priest, according to a prescribed form, was 
required of all who were admitted to the "Mysteries"; and till such confession had been made, no 
complete initiation could take place. Thus does Salverte refer to this confession as observed in 
Greece, in rites that can be clearly traced to a Babylonian origin: "All the Greeks, from Delphi to 
Thermopylae, were initiated in the Mysteries of the temple of Delphi. Their silence in regard to 
everything they were commanded to keep secret was secured both by the fear of the penalties 
threatened to a perjured revelation, and by the general CONFESSION exacted of the aspirants 
after initiation- -a confession which caused them greater dread of the indiscretion of the priest, 
than gave him reason to dread their indiscretion." This confession is also referred to by Potter, in 
his "Greek Antiquities," though it has been generally overlooked. In his account of the 
Eleusinian mysteries, after describing the preliminary ceremonies and instructions before the 
admission of the candidates for initiation into the immediate presence of the divinities, he thus 
proceeds: "Then the priest that initiated them called the Hierophant, proposed certain 
QUESTIONS, as, whether they were fasting, &c, to which they returned answers in a set form." 
The etcetera here might not strike a casual reader; but it is a pregnant etcetera, and contains a 
great deal. It means, Are you free from every violation of chastity? and that not merely in the 
sense of moral impurity, but in that factitious sense of chastity which Paganism always cherishes. 
Are you free from the guilt of murder?- -for no one guilty of slaughter, even accidentally, could 


be admitted till he was purged from blood, and there were certain priests, called Koes, who 
"heard confessions" in such cases, and purged the guilt away. The strictness of the inquiries in 
the Pagan confessional is evidently implied in certain licentious poems of Propertius, Tibullus, 
and Juvenal. Wilkinson, in his chapter on "Private Fasts and Penance," which, he says, "were 
strictly enforced," in connection with "certain regulations at fixed periods," has several classical 
quotations, which clearly prove whence Popery derived the kind of questions which have 
stamped that character of obscenity on its confessional, as exhibited in the notorious pages of 
Peter Dens. The pretence under which this auricular confession was required, was, that the 
solemnities to which the initiated were to be admitted were so high, so heavenly, so holy, that no 
man with guilt lying on his conscience, and sin unpurged, could lawfully be admitted to them. 
For the safety, therefore of those who were to be initiated, it was held to be indispensable that the 
officiating priest should thoroughly probe their consciences, lest coming without due purgation 
from previous guilt contracted, the wrath of the gods should be provoked against the profane 
intruders. This was the pretence; but when we know the essentially unholy nature, both of the 
gods and their worship, who can fail to see that this was nothing more than a pretence; that the 
grand object in requiring the candidates for initiation to make confession to the priest of all their 
secret faults and shortcomings and sins, was just to put them entirely in the power of those to 
whom the inmost feelings of their souls and their most important secrets were confided? Now, 
exactly in the same way, and for the very same purposes, has Rome erected the confessional. 
Instead of requiring priests and people alike, as the Scripture does, to "confess their faults one to 
another," when either have offended the other, it commands all, on pain of perdition, to confess 
to the priest, * whether they have transgressed against him or no, while the priest is under no 
obligation to confess to the people at all. 

* BISHOP HAY'S Sincere Christian. In this work, the following question and 
answer occur: "Q. Is this confession of our sins necessary for obtaining 
absolution? A. It is ordained by Jesus Christ as absolutely necessary for this 
purpose." See also Poor Man's Manual, a work in use in Ireland. 

Without such confession, in the Church of Rome, there can be no admission to the Sacraments, 
any more than in the days of Paganism there could be admission without confession to the 
benefit of the Mysteries. Now, this confession is made by every individual, in SECRECY AND 
IN SOLITUDE, to the priest sitting in the name and clothed with the authority of God, invested 
with the power to examine the conscience, to judge the life, to absolve or condemn according to 
his mere arbitrary will and pleasure. This is the grand pivot on which the whole "Mystery of 
iniquity," as embodied in the Papacy, is made to turn; and wherever it is submitted to, admirably 
does it serve the design of binding men in abject subjection to the priesthood. 

In conformity with the principle out of which the confessional grew, the Church, that is, the 
clergy, claimed to be the sole depositaries of the true faith of Christianity. As the Chaldean 
priests were believed alone to possess the key to the understanding of the Mythology of Babylon, 
a key handed down to them from primeval antiquity, so the priests of Rome set up to be the sole 
interpreters of Scripture; they only had the true tradition, transmitted from age to age, without 
which it was impossible to arrive at its true meaning. They, therefore, require implicit faith in 
their dogmas; all men were bound to believe as the Church believed, while the Church in this 
way could shape its faith as it pleased. As possessing supreme authority, also, over the faith, they 
could let out little or much, as they judged most expedient; and "RESERVE" in teaching the 
great truths of religion was as essential a principle in the system of Babylon, as it is in Romanism 


or Tractariansim at this day. * It was this priestly claim to dominion over the faith of men, that 
"imprisoned the truth in unrighteousness" ** in the ancient world, so that "darkness covered the 
earth, and gross darkness the people." It was the very same claim, in the hands of the Roman 
priests, that ushered in the dark ages, when, through many a dreary century, the Gospel was 
unknown, and the Bible a sealed book to millions who bore the name of Christ. In every respect, 
then, we see how justly Rome bears on its forehead the name, "Mystery, Babylon the Great." 

* Even among the initiated there was a difference. Some were admitted only to 
the "Lesser Mysteries"; the "Greater" were for a favoured few. WILKINSON'S 
Ancient Egyptians 

** Romans 1:18. The best interpreters render the passage as given above. It will 
be observed Paul is expressly speaking of the heathen. 

Chapter II 
Objects of Worship 

Section I 
Trinity in Unity 

If there be this general coincidence between the systems of Babylon and Rome, the question 
arises, Does the coincidence stop here? To this the answer is, Far otherwise. We have only to 
bring the ancient Babylonian Mysteries to bear on the whole system of Rome, and then it will be 
seen how immensely the one has borrowed from the other. These Mysteries were long shrouded 
in darkness, but now the thick darkness begins to pass away. All who have paid the least 
attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the 
"Mysteries" occupied in these countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might 
be, in all essential respects these "Mysteries" in the different countries were the same. Now, as 
the language of Jeremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the primal source 
from which all these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of the most learned historians, 
on mere historical grounds have led to the same conclusion. From Zonaras we find that the 
concurrent testimony of the ancient authors he had consulted was to this effect; for, speaking of 
arithmetic and astronomy, he says: "It is said that these came from the Chaldees to the Egyptians, 
and thence to the Greeks." If the Egyptians and Greeks derived their arithmetic and astronomy 
from Chaldea, seeing these in Chaldea were sacred sciences, and monopolised by the priests, that 
is sufficient evidence that they must have derived their religion from the same quarter. Both 
Bunsen and Layard in their researches have come to substantially the same result. The statement 
of Bunsen is to the effect that the religious system of Egypt was derived from Asia, and "the 
primitive empire in Babel." Layard, again, though taking a somewhat more favourable view of 
the system of the Chaldean Magi, than, I am persuaded, the facts of history warrant, nevertheless 
thus speaks of that system: "Of the great antiquity of this primitive worship there is abundant 
evidence, and that it originated among the inhabitants of the Assyrian plains, we have the united 
testimony of sacred and profane history. It obtained the epithet of perfect, and was believed to be 
the most ancient of religious systems, having preceded that of the Egyptians." "The identity," he 
adds, "of many of the Assyrian doctrines with those of Egypt is alluded to by Porphyry and 
Clemens"; and, in connection with the same subject, he quotes the following from Birch on 
Babylonian cylinders and monuments: "The zodiacal signs... show unequivocally that the Greeks 
derived their notions and arrangements of the zodiac [and consequently their Mythology, that 


was intertwined with it] from the Chaldees. The identity of Nimrod with the constellation Orion 
is not to be rejected." Ouvaroff, also, in his learned work on the Eleusinian mysteries, has come 
to the same conclusion. After referring to the fact that the Egyptian priests claimed the honour of 
having transmitted to the Greeks the first elements of Polytheism, he thus concludes: "These 
positive facts would sufficiently prove, even without the conformity of ideas, that the Mysteries 
transplanted into Greece, and there united with a certain number of local notions, never lost the 
character of their origin derived from the cradle of the moral and religious ideas of the universe. 
All these separate facts--all these scattered testimonies, recur to that fruitful principle which 
places in the East the centre of science and civilisation." If thus we have evidence that Egypt and 
Greece derived their religion from Babylon, we have equal evidence that the religious system of 
the Phoenicians came from the same source. Macrobius shows that the distinguishing feature of 
the Phoenician idolatry must have been imported from Assyria, which, in classic writers, 
included Babylonia. "The worship of the Architic Venus," says he, "formerly flourished as much 
among the Assyrians as it does now among the Phenicians." 

Now to establish the identity between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, we have 
just to inquire in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in 
these Babylonian Mysteries. In prosecuting such an inquiry there are considerable difficulties to 
be overcome; for, as in geology, it is impossible at all points to reach the deep, underlying strata 
of the earth's surface, so it is not to be expected that in any one country we should find a 
complete and connected account of the system established in that country. But yet, even as the 
geologist, by examining the contents of a fissure here, an upheaval there, and what "crops out" of 
itself on the surface elsewhere, is enabled to determine, with wonderful certainty, the order and 
general contents of the different strata over all the earth, so is it with the subject of the Chaldean 
Mysteries. What is wanted in one country is supplemented in another; and what actually "crops 
out" in different directions, to a large extent necessarily determines the character of much that 
does not directly appear on the surface. Taking, then, the admitted unity and Babylonian 
character of the ancient Mysteries of Egypt, Greece, Phoenicia, and Rome, as the clue to guide us 
in our researches, let us go on from step to step in our comparison of the doctrine and practice of 
the two Babylons--the Babylon of the Old Testament and the Babylon of the New. 

And here I have to notice, first, the identity of the objects of worship in Babylon and Rome. The 
ancient Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognised in words the unity of the Godhead; 
and, while worshipping innumerable minor deities, as possessed of certain influence on human 
affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was ONE infinite and almighty Creator, supreme 
over all. Most other nations did the same. "In the early ages of mankind," says Wilkinson in his 
"Ancient Egyptians," "The existence of a sole and omnipotent Deity, who created all things, 
seems to have been the universal belief; and tradition taught men the same notions on this 
subject, which, in later times, have been adopted by all civilised nations." "The Gothic religion," 
says Mallet, "taught the being of a supreme God, Master of the Universe, to whom all things 
were submissive and obedient." (Tacti. de Morib. Germ.) The ancient Icelandic mythology calls 
him "the Author of every thing that existeth, the eternal, the living, and awful Being; the searcher 
into concealed things, the Being that never changeth. " It attributeth to this deity "an infinite 
power, a boundless knowledge, and incorruptible justice." We have evidence of the same having 
been the faith of ancient Hindostan. Though modern Hinduism recognises millions of gods, yet 
the Indian sacred books show that originally it had been far otherwise. Major Moor, speaking of 
Brahm, the supreme God of the Hindoos, says: "Of Him whose Glory is so great, there is no 
image" (Veda). He "illumines all, delights all, whence all proceeded; that by which they live 


when born, and that to which all must return" (Veda). In the "Institutes of Menu," he is 
characterised as "He whom the mind alone can perceive; whose essence eludes the external 
organs, who has no visible parts, who exists from eternity... the soul of all beings, whom no being 
can comprehend." In these passages, there is a trace of the existence of Pantheism; but the very 
language employed bears testimony to the existence among the Hindoos at one period of a far 
purer faith. 

Nay, not merely had the ancient Hndoos exalted ideas of the natural perfections of God, but 
there is evidence that they were well aware of the gracious character of God, as revealed in His 
dealings with a lost and guilty world. This is manifest from the very name Brahm, appropriated 
by them to the one infinite and eternal God. There has been a great deal of unsatisfactory 
speculation in regard to the meaning of this name, but when the different statements in regard to 
Brahm are carefully considered, it becomes evident that the name Brahm is just the Hebrew 
Rahm, with the digamma prefixed, which is very frequent in Sanscrit words derived from 
Hebrew or Chaldee. Rahm in Hebrew signifies "The merciful or compassionate one." But Rahm 
also signifies the WOMB or the bowels; as the seat of compassion. Now we find such language 
applied to Brahm, the one supreme God, as cannot be accounted for, except on the supposition 
that Brahm had the very same meaning as the Hebrew Rahm. Thus, we find the God Crishna, in 
one of the Hindoo sacred books, when asserting his high dignity as a divinity and his identity 
with the Supreme, using the following words: "The great Brahm is my WOMB, and in it I place 
my foetus, and from it is the procreation of all nature. The great Brahm is the WOMB of all the 
various forms which are conceived in every natural womb." How could such language ever have 
been applied to "The supreme Brahm, the most holy, the most high God, the Divine being, 
before all other gods; without birth, the mighty Lord, God of gods, the universal Lord," but from 
the connection between Rahm "the womb" and Rahm "the merciful one"? Here, then, we find 
that Brahm is just the same as "Er- Rahman," "The all- merciful one, "--a title applied by the Turks 
to the Most High, and that the Hindoos, notwithstanding their deep religious degradation now, 
had once known that "the most holy, most high God," is also "The God of Mercy," in other 
words, that he is "a just God and a Saviour." And proceeding on this interpretation of the name 
Brahm, we see how exactly their religious knowledge as to the creation had coincided with the 
account of the origin of all things, as given in Genesis. It is well known that the Brahmins, to 
exalt themselves as a priestly, half- divine caste, to whom all others ought to bow down, have for 
many ages taught that, while the other castes came from the arms, and body and feet of Brahma- - 
the visible representative and manifestation of the invisible Brahm, and identified with him-- they 
alone came from the mouth of the creative God. Now we find statements in their sacred books 
which prove that once a very different doctrine must have been taught. Thus, in one of the 
Vedas, speaking of Brahma, it is expressly stated that "ALL beings" "are created from his 
MOUTH." In the passage in question an attempt is made to mystify the matter; but, taken in 
connection with the meaning of the name Brahm, as already given, who can doubt what was the 
real meaning of the statement, opposed though it be to the lofty and exclusive pretensions of the 
Brahmins? It evidently meant that He who, ever since the fall, has been revealed to man as the 
"Merciful and Gracious One" (Exo 34:6), was known at the same time as the Almighty One, who 
in the beginning 'spake and it was done," "commanded and all things stood fast," who made all 
things by the 'Word of His power." After what has now been said, any one who consults the 
"Asiatic Researches," may see that it is in a great measure from a wicked perversion of this 
Divine title of the One Living and True God, a title that ought to have been so dear to sinful men, 


that all those moral abominations have come that make the symbols of the pagan temples of 
India so offensive to the eye of purity. * 

* While such is the meaning of Brahm, the meaning of Deva, the generic name 
for "God" in India, is near akin to it. That name is commonly derived from the 
Sanscrit, Div, "to shine,"--only a different form of Shiv, which has the same 
meaning, which again comes from the Chaldee Ziv, "brightness or splendour" 
(Dan 2:31); and, no doubt, when sun-worship was engrafted on the Patriarchal 
faith, the visible splendour of the deified luminary might be suggested by the 
name. But there is reason to believe that "Deva" has a much more honourable 
origin, and that it really came originally from the Chaldee, Thav, "good," which is 
also legitimately pronounced Thev, and in the emphatic form is Theva or Thevo, 
"The Good." The first letter, represented by Th, as shown by Donaldson in his 
New Cratylus, is frequently pronounced Dh. Hence, from Dheva or Theva, "The 
Good," naturally comes the Sanscrit, Deva, or, without the digamma, as it 
frequently is, Deo, "God," the Latin, Deus, and the Greek, Theos, the digamma in 
the original Thevo-s being also dropped, as novus in Latin is neos in Greek. This 
view of the matter gives an emphasis to the saying of our Lord (Matt 19:17): 
"There is none good but One, that is (Theos) God"-- "The Good." 

So utterly idolatrous was the Babylonian recognition of the Divine unity, that Jehovah, the 
Living God, severely condemned His own people for giving any countenance to it: "They that 
sanctify themselves, and purify themselves in the gardens, after the rites of the ONLY ONE, * 
eating swine's flesh, and the abomination, and the mouse, shall be consumed together" (Isa 

* The words in our translation are, "behind one tree," but there is no word in the 
original for "tree"; and it is admitted by Lowth, and the best orientalists, that the 
rendering should be, "after the rites of Achad," i.e. "The Only One." I am aware 
that some object to making "Achad" signify, "The Only One," on the ground that 
it wants the article. But how little weight is in this, may be seen from the fact that 
it is this very term "Achad," and that without the article, that is used in 
Deuteronomy, when the Unity of the Godhead is asserted in the most emphatic 
manner, "Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God is one Jehovah," i.e., "only Jehovah." 
When it is intended to assert the Unity of the Godhead in the strongest possible 
manner, the Babylonians used the term "Adad." Macrobii Saturnalia. 

In the unity of that one Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolise 
that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of Layard prove, the equilateral 
triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does at this day. * 

* LA YARD'S Babylon and Nineveh. The Egyptians also used the triangle as a 
symbol of their "triform divinity." 

In both cases such a comparison is most degrading to the King Eternal, and is fitted utterly to 
pervert the minds of those who contemplate it, as if there was or could be any similitude between 
such a figure and Him who hath said, "To whom will ye liken God, and what likeness will ye 
compare unto Him?" 


The Papacy has in some of its churches, as, for instance, in the monastery of the so-called 
Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body. * The 
Babylonians had something of the same. Mr. Layard, in his last work, has given a specimen of 
such a triune divinity, worshipped in ancient Assyria. ( Fig. 3 ) ** The accompanying cut ( Fig. 
4) of such another divinity, worshipped among the Pagans of Siberia, is taken from a medal in 
the Imperial Cabinet of St. Petersburg, and given in Parson's "Japhet." *** The three heads are 
differently arranged in Layard's specimen, but both alike are evidently intended to symbolise the 
same great truth, although all such representation of the Trinity necessarily and utterly debase the 
conceptions of those, among whom such images prevail, in regard to that sublime mystery of our 

* PARKHURST'S Hebrew Lexicon, "Cherubim." From the following extract 
from the Dublin Catholic Layman, a very able Protestant paper, describing a 
Popish picture of the Trinity, recently published in that city, it will be seen that 
something akin to this mode of representing the Godhead is appearing nearer 
home: "At the top of the picture is a representation of the Holy Trinity. We beg to 
speak of it with due reverence. God the Father and God the Son are represented as 
a MAN with two heads, one body, and two arms. One of the heads is like the 
ordinary pictures of our Saviour. The other is the head of an old man, surmounted 
by a triangle. Out of the middle of this figure is proceeding the Holy Ghost in the 
form of a dove. We think it must be painful to any Christian mind, and repugnant 
to Christian feeling, to look at this figure." (17th July, 1856) 

** Babylon and Nineveh. Some have said that the plural form of the name of 
God, in the Hebrew of Genesis, affords no argument of the doctrine of plurality of 
persons in the Godhead, because the same word in the plural is applied to heathen 
divinities. But if the supreme divinity in almost all ancient heathen nations was 
triune, the futility of this objection must be manifest. 

*** Japhet, p. 184. 

In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the most ancient cave-temples, is 
represented with three heads on one body, under the name of "Eko Deva Trimurtti," "One God, 
three forms." * 

* Col. KENNEDY'S Hindoo Mythology. Col. Kennedy objects to the application 
of the name "Eko Deva" to the triform image in the cave-temple at Elephanta, on 
the ground that that name belongs only to the supreme Brahm. But in so doing he 
is entirely inconsistent, for he admits that Brahma, the first person in that triform 
image, is identified with the supreme Brahm; and further, that a curse is 
pronounced upon all who distinguish between Brahma, Vishnu, and Seva, the 
three divinities represented by that image. 

In Japan, the Buddhists worship their great divinity, Buddha, with three heads, in the very same 
form, under the name of "San Pao Fuh." All these have existed from ancient times. While 
overlaid with idolatry, the recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of the 
world, proving how deep-rooted in the human race was the primeval doctrine on this subject, 
which comes out so distinctly in Genesis. * 


* The threefold invocation of the sacred name in the blessing of Jacob bestowed 
on the sons of Joseph is very striking: "And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, 
before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac did walk the God which fed me all 
my life long unto this day, the Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the 
lads" (Gen 48:15,16). If the angel here referred to had not been God, Jacob could 
never have invoked him as on an equality with God. In Hosea 12:3-5, "The Angel 
who redeemed" Jacob is expressly called God: "He (Jacob) had power with God: 
yea, he had power over the Angel, and prevailed; he wept and made supplication 
unto him: he found him in Bethel, and there he spake with us; even the Lord God 
of Hosts; The Lord is his memorial." 

When we look at the symbols in the triune figure of Layard, already referred to, and minutely 
examine them, they are very instructive. Layard regards the circle in that figure as signifying 
"Time without bounds." But the hieroglyphic meaning of the circle is evidently different. A 
circle in Chaldea was zero; * and zero also signified "the seed." 

* In our own language we have evidence that Zero had signified a circle among 
the Chaldeans; for what is Zero, the name of the cypher, but just a circle? And 
whence can we have derived this term but from the Arabians, as they, without 
doubt, had themselves derived it from the Chaldees, the grand original cultivators 
at once of arithmetic, geometry, and idolatry? Zero, in this sense, had evidently 
come from the Chaldee, zer, "to encompass," from which, also, no doubt, was 
derived the Babylonian name for a great cycle of time, called a "saws." 
(BUNSEN) As he, who by the Chaldeans was regarded as the great "Seed," was 
looked upon as the sun incarnate, and as the emblem of the sun was a circle 
(BUNSEN), the hieroglyphical relation between zero, "the circle," and zero, "the 
seed," was easily established. 

Therefore, according to the genius of the mystic system of Chaldea, which was to a large extent 
founded on double meanings, that which, to the eyes of men in general, was only zero, "a circle," 
was understood by the initiated to signify zero, "the seed." Now, viewed in this light, the triune 
emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity shows clearly what had been the original patriarchal 
faith. First, there is the head of the old man; next, there is the zero, or circle, for "the seed"; and 
lastly, the wings and tail of the bird or dove; * showing, though blasphemously, the unity of 
Father, Seed, or Son, and Holy Ghost. 

* From the statement in Genesis 1:2, that "the Spirit of God fluttered on the face 
of the deep" (for that is the expression in the original), it is evident that the dove 
had very early been a Divine emblem for the Holy Spirit. 

While this had been the original way in which Pagan idolatry had represented the Triune God, 
and though this kind of representation had survived to Sennacherib's time, yet there is evidence 
that, at a very early period, an important change had taken place in the Babylonian notions in 
regard to the divinity; and that the three persons had come to be, the Eternal Father, the Spirit of 
God incarnate in a human mother, and a Divine Son, the fruit of that incarnation. 


Section II 
The Mother and Child, and the Original of the Child 

While this was the theory, the first perons in the Godhead was practically overlooked. As the 

Great Invisible, taking no immediate concern in human affairs, he was "to be worshipped 
through silence alone," that is, in point of fact, he was not worshipped by the multitude at all. 

■V. S. 

rig. *, 

Fmw lutfh.** 

* From Kitto's Illustrated Commentary, vol. iv. p. 31 
** Indrani, the wife of the Indian god Indra, from Asiatic Researches, vol. vi. p. 393. The same thing is 

strikingly illustrated in India at this day. Though Brahma, according to the sacred books, is the 
first person of the Hindoo Triad, and the religiion of Hindostan is callec by his name, yet he is 
never worshipped, and there is scarcely a single Temple in all India now in existence of those 
that were formerly erected to his honour. So also is it in those countries of Europe where the 
Papal system is most completely developed. In Papal Italy, as travellers universally admit 
(except where the Gospel has recently entered), all appearance of worshipping the King Eternal 
and Invisible is almost extinct, while the Mother and the Child are the grand objects of worship. 
Exactly so, in this latter respect, also was it in ancient Babylon. The Babylonians, in their 
popular religion, supremely worshipped a Goddess Mother and a Son, who was represented in 
pictures and in images as an infant or child in his mother's arms. (Figs. 5 and 6) From Babylon, 
this worship of the Mother and the Child spread to the ends of the earth. In Egypt, the Mother 
and the Child were worshipped under the names of Isis and Osiris. * In India, even to this day, as 
Isi and Iswara; ** in Asia, as Cybele and Deoius; in Pagan Rome, as Fortuna and Jupiter-puer, or 
Jupiter, the boy; in Greece, as Ceres, the Great Mother, with the babe at her breast, or as Irene, 
the goddess of Peace, with the boy Plutus in her arms; and even in Thibet, in China, and Japan, 
the Jesuit missionaries were astronished to find the counterpart of Madonna *** and her child as 


devoutly worshipped as in Papal Rome itself; Shing Moo, the Holy Mother in China, being 
represented with a child in her arms, and a glory around her, exactly as if a Roman Catholic artist 
had been employed to set her up. **** 

* Osiris, as the child called most frequently Horus. BUNSEN. 

** KENNEDY'S Hindoo Mythology. Though Iswara is the husband of Isi, he is 
also represnted as an infant at her breast. 

*** The very name by which the Italians commonly designate the Virgin, is just 
the translation of one of the titles of the Babylonian goddess. As Baal or Belus 
was the name of the great male divinity of Babylon, so the female divinity was 
called Beltis. (HESYCHIUS, Lexicon) This name has been found in Nineveh 
applied to the "Mother of the gods" (VAUX'S Nineveh and Persepolis); and in a 
speech attributed to Nebuchadnezzar, preserved in EUSEBII Proeparatio 
Evangelii, both titles "Belus and Beltis" are conjoined as the titles of the great 
Babylonian god and goddess. The Greek Belus, as representing the highest title of 
the Babylonian god, was undoubtedly Baal, "The Lord." Beltis, therefore, as the 
title of the female divinity, was equivalent to "Baalti," which, in English, is "My 
Lady," in Latin, "Mea Domina," and, in Italina, is corrupted into the well known 
"Madonna." In connection with this, it may be observed, that the name of Juno, 
the classical "Queen of Heaven," which, in Greek, was Hera, also signified "The 
Lady"; and that the peculiar title of Cybele or Rhea at Rome, was Domina or "The 
Lady." (OVID, Fasti) Further, there is strong reason to believe, that Athena, the 
well known name of Minerva at Athens, had the very same meaning. The Hebrew 
Adon, "The Lord," is, with the points, pronounced Athon. We have evidence that 
this name was known to the Asiatic Greeks, from whom idolatry, in a large 
measure, came into European Greece, as a name of God under the form of 
"Athan." Eustathius, in a note on the Periergesis of Dionysius, speaking of local 
names in the district of Laodicea, says the "Athan is god." The feminine of Athan, 
"The Lord," is Athan, "The Lady," which in the Attic dialect, is Athena. No 
doubt, Minerva is commonly represented as a virgin; but, for all that, we learn 
from Strabo that at Hierapytna in Crete (the coins of which city, says Muller, 
Dorians have the Athenian symbols of Minerva upon them), she was said to be 
the mother of the Corybantes by Helius, or "The Sun." It is certain that the 
Egyptian Minerva, who was the prototype of the Athenian goddess, was a mother, 
and was styled "Goddess Mother," or "Mother of the Gods." 

**** CRABB'S Mythology. Gutzlaff thought that Shing Moo must have been 
borrowed from a Popish source; and there can be no doubt, that in the individual 
case to which he refers, the Pagan and the Christian stories had been 
amalgamated. But Sir. J. F. Davis shows that the Chinese of Canton find such an 
analogy between their own Pagan goddess Kuanyin and the Popish Madonna, 
that, in conversing with Europeans, they frequently call either of them 
indifferently by the same title. DAVIS' China. The first Jesuit missionaries to 
China also wrote home to Europe, that they found mention in the Chinese sacred 
books--books unequivocally Pagan--of a mother and child, very similar to their 
own Madonna and child at home. 


One of the names of the Chinese Holy Mother is Ma Tsoopo; in regard to which, 
see below. 

Shing Moo and Ma Tsoopo of China 

The name of Shing Moo, applied by the Chinese to their "Holy Mother," compared with another name of the same 
goddess in another province of China, strongly favours the conclusion that Shing Moo is just a synonym for one of 
the well known names of the goddess -mother of Babylon. Gillespie (in his Land ofSinim) states that the Chinese 
goddess -mother, or "Queen of Heaven," in the province of Fuh-kien, is worshipped by seafaring people under the 
name of Ma Tsoopo. Now, "Ama Tzupah" signifies the "Gazing Mother"; and there is much reason to believe that 
Shing Moo signifies the same; for Mu was one of the forms in which Mut or Maut, the name of the great mother, 
appeared in Egypt (BUNSEN'S Vocabulary); and Shngh, in Chaldee, signifies "to look" or "gaze." The Egyptian Mu 
or Maut was symbolised either by a vulture, or an eye surrounded by a vulture's wings (WILKINSON). The 
symbolic meaning of the vulture may be learned from the Scriptural expression: "There is a path which no fowl 
knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen" (Job 28:7). The vulture was noted for its sharp sight, and hence, 
the eye surrounded by the vulture's wings showed that, for some reason or other, the great mother of the gods in 
Egypt had been known as "The gazer." But the idea contained in the Egyptian symbol had evidently been borrowed 
from Chaldea; for Rheia, one of the most noted names of the Babylonian mother of the gods, is just the Chaldee 
form of the Hebrew Rhaah, which signifies at once "a gazing woman" and a "vulture." The Hebrew Rhaah itself is 
also, according to a dialectical variation, legitimately pronounced Rheah; and hence the name of the great goddess - 
mother of Assyria was sometimes Rhea, and sometimes Rheia. In Greece, the same idea was evidently attached to 
Athena or Minerva, whom we have seen to have been by some regarded as the Mother of the children of the sun. For 
one of her distinguis hing titles was Ophthalmitis (SMITH'S Classical Dictionary, "Athena"), thereby pointing her 
out as the goddess of "the eye." It was no doubt to indicate the same thing that, as the Egyptian Maut wore a vulture 
on her head, so the Athenian Minerva was represented as wearing a helmet with two eyes, or eye -holes, in the front 
of the helmet. (VAUX'S Antiquities) 

Having thus traced the gazing mother over the earth, is it asked, What can have given origin to such a name as 
applied to the mother of the gods? A fragment of Sanchuniathon, in regard to the Phoenician mythology, furnishes 
us with a satisfactory reply. There it is said that Rheia conceived by Kronos, who was her own brother, and yet was 
known as the father of the gods, and in consequence brought forth a son who was called Muth, that is, as Philo- 
Byblius correctly interprets the word, "Death." As Sanchuniathon expressly distinguishes this "father of the gods" 
from "Hypsistos," The Most High, * we naturally recall what Hesiod says in regard to his Kronos, the father of the 
gods, who, for a certain wicked deed, was called Titan, and cast down to hell. (Theogonia) 

* In reading Sanchuniathon, it is necessary to bear in mind what Philo-Byblius, his translator, 
states at the end of the Phenician History- -viz., that history and mythology were mingled together 
in that work. 

The Kronos to whom Hesiod refers is evidently at bottom a different Kronos from the human father of the gods, or 
Nimrod, whose history occupies so large a place in this work. He is plainly none other than Satan himself; the name 
Titan, or Teitan, as it is sometimes given, being, as we have elsewhere concluded, only the Chaldee form of Sheitan, 
the common name of the grand Adversary among the Arabs, in the very region where the Chaldean Mysteries were 
originally concocted,~that Adversary who was ultimately the real father of all the Pagan gods,~and who (to make 
the title of Kronos, "the Horned One," appropriate to him also) was symbolised by the Kerastes, or Horned serpent. 
All "the brethren" of this father of the gods, who were implicated in his rebellion against his own father, the "God of 
Heaven," were equally called by the "reproachful" name "Titans"; but, inasmuch as he was the ringleader in the 
rebellion, he was, of course, Titan by way of eminence. In this rebellion of Titan, the goddess of the earth was 
concerned, and the result was that (removing the figure under which Hesiod has hid the fact) it became naturally 
impossible that the God of Heaven should have children upon earth-a plain allusion to the Fall. 

Now, assuming that this is the "Father of the gods," by whom Rhea, whose common title is that of the Mother of the 
gods, and who is also identified with Ge, or the Earth-goddess, had the child called Muth, or Death, who could this 
"Mother of the gods" be, but just our Mother Eve? And the name Rhea, or "The Gazer," bestowed on her, is 
wondrously significant. It was as "the gazer" that the mother of mankind conceived by Satan, and brought forth that 
deadly birth, under which the world has hitherto groaned. It was through her eyes that the fatal connection was first 
formed between her and the grand Adversary, under the form of a serpent, whose name, Nahash, or Nachash, as it 


Sub-Section I 
The Child in Assyria 

The original of that mother, so widely worshipped, there is reason to believe, was Semiramis, * 
already referred to, who, it is well known, was worshipped by the Babylonians, and other eastern 
nations, and that under the name of Rhea, the great Goddess "Mother." 

* Sir H. Rawlinson having found evidence at Nineveh, of the existence of a 
Semiramis about six or seven centuries before the Christian era, seems inclined to 
regard her as the only Semiramis that ever existed. But this is subversive of all 
history. The fact that there was a Semiramis in the primeval ages of the world, is 
beyond all doubt, although some of the exploits of the latter queen have evidently 
been attributed to her predecessor. Mr. Layard dissents from Sir. H. Rawlinson's 

It was from the son, however, that she derived all her glory and her claims to deification. That 
son, though represented as a child in his mother's arms, was a person of great stature and 
immense bodily powers, as well as most fascinating manners. In Scripture re is referred to (Eze 
8:14) under the name of Tammuz, but he is commonly known among classical writers under the 
name of Bacchus, that is, "The Lamented one." * 

* From Bakhah "to weep" or "lament." Among the Phoenicians, says Hesychius, 
"Bacchos means weeping." As the women wept for Tammuz, so did they for 

To the ordinary reader the name of Bacchus suggests nothing more than revelry and 
drunkenness, but it is now well known, that amid all the abominations that attended his orgies, 

stands in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, also signifies "to view attentively," or "to gaze" (Gen 3:6) "And when 
the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and pleasant to the eyes," &c, "she took of the fruit thereof, and did 
eat; and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat." Here, then, we have the pedigree of sin and death; 
"Lust, when it had conceived, brought forth sin; and sin, when it was finished, brought forth death" (James 1:15). 
Though Muth, or Death, was the son of Rhea, this progeny of hers came to be regarded, not as Death in the abstract, 
but as the god of death; therefore, says Philo-Byblius, Muth was interpreted not only as death, but as Pluto. 
(SANCHUN) In the Roman mythology, Pluto was regarded as on a level, for honour, with Jupiter (OVID, Fasti); 
and in Egypt, we have evidence that Osiris, "the seed of the woman," was the "Lord of heaven," and king of hell, or 
"Pluto" (WILKINSON; BUNSEN); and it can be shown by a large induction of particulars (and the reader has 
somewhat of the evidence presented in this volume), that he was none other than the Devil himself, supposed to 
have become incarnate; who, though through the first transgression, and his connection with the woman, he had 
brought sin and death into the world, had, nevertheless, by means of them, brought innumerable benefits to 
mankind. As the name Pluto has the very same meaning as Saturn, "The hidden one," so, whatever other aspect this 
name had, as applied to the father of the gods, it is to Satan, the Hidden Lord of hell, ultimately that all came at last 
to be traced back; for the different myths about Saturn, when carefully examined, show that he was at once the 
Devil, the father of all sin and idolatry, who hid himself under the disguise of the serpent,— and Adam, who hid 
himself among the trees of the garden,— and Noah, who lay hid for a whole year in the ark, -and Nimrod, who was 
hid in the secrecy of the Babylonian Mysteries. It was to glorify Nimrod that the whole Chaldean system of iniquity 
was formed. He was known as Nin, "the son," and his wife as Rhea, who was called Ammas, "The Mother." The 
name Rhea, as applied to Semiramis, had another meaning from what it had when applied to her, who was really the 
primeval goddess, the "mother of gods and men." But yet, to make out the full majesty of her character, it was 
necessary that she should be identified with that primeval goddess; and, therefore, although the son she bore in her 
arms was represented as he who was born to destroy death, yet she was often represented with the very symbols of 
her who brought death into the world. And so was it also in the different countries where the Babylonian system 


their grand design was professedly "the purification of souls," and that from the guilt and 
defilement of sin. This lamented one, exhibited and adored as a little child in his mother's arms, 
seems, in point of fact, to have been the husband of Semiramis, whose name, Ninus, by which he 
is commonly known in classical history, literally signified "The Son." As Semiramis, the wife, 
was worshipped as Rhea, whose grand distinguishing character was that of the great goddess 
"Mother," * the conjunction with her of her husband, under the name of Ninus, or "The Son," 
was sufficient to originate the peculiar worship of the "Mother and Son," so extensively diffused 
among the nations of antiquity; and this, no doubt, is the explanation of the fact which has so 
much puzzled the inquirers into ancient history, that Ninus is sometimes called the husband, and 
sometimes the son of Semiramis. 

* As such Rhea was called by the Greeks, Ammas. Ammas is evidently the Greek 
form of the Chaldee Ama, "Mother." 

This also accounts for the origin of the very same confusion of relationship between Isis and 
Osiris, the mother and child of the Egyptians; for as Bunsen shows, Osiris was represented in 
Egypt as at once the son and husband of his mother; and actually bore, as one of his titles of 
dignity and honour, the name "Husband of the Mother." * This still further casts light on the fact 
already noticed, that the Indian God Iswara is represented as a babe at the breast of his own wife 
Isi, or Parvati. 

* BUNSEN. It may be observed that this very name "Husband of the Mother," 
given to Osiris, seems even at this day to be in common use among ourselves, 
although there is not the least suspicion of the meaning of the term, or whence it 
has come. Herodotus mentions that when in Egypt, he was astonished to hear the 
very same mournful but ravishing "Song of Linus," sung by the Egyptians 
(although under another name), which he had been accustomed to hear in his own 
native land of Greece. Linus was the same god as the Bacchus of Greece, or 
Osiris of Egypt; for Homer introduces a boy singing the song of Linus, while the 
vintage is going on QUas), and the Scholiast says that this son was sung in 
memory of Linus, who was torn in pieces by dogs. The epithet 'dogs" applied to 
those who tore Linus in pieces, is evidently used in a mystical sense, and it will 
afterwards been seen how thoroughly the other name by which he is known- 
Narcissus --identifies him with the Greek Bacchus and Egyptian Osiris. In some 
places in Egypt, for the song of Linus or Osiris, a peculiar melody seems to have 
been used. Savary says that, in the temple of Abydos, "the priest repeated the 
seven vowels in the form of hymns, and that musicians were forbid to enter it." 
(Letters) Strabo, whom Savary refers to, calls the god of that temple Memnon, but 
we learn from Wilkinson that Osiris was the great god of Abydos, whence it is 
evident that Memnon and Osiris were only different names of the same divinity. 
Now the name of Linus or Osiris, as the "husband of his mother," in Egypt, was 
Kamut (BUNSEN). When Gregory the Great introduced into the Church of Rome 
what are now called the Gregorian Chants, he got them from the Chaldean 
mysteries, which had long been established in Rome; for the Roman Catholic 
priest, Eustace, admits that these chants were largely composed of "Lydian and 
Phrygian tunes" (Classical Tour), Lydia and Phrygia being among the chief seats 
in later times of those mysteries, of which the Egyptian mysteries were only a 
branch. These tunes were sacred--the music of the great god, and in introducing 


them Gregory introduced the music of Kamut. And thus, to all appearance, has it 
come to pass, that the name of Osiris or Kamut, "the husband of the mother," is in 
every-day use among ourselves as the name of the musical scale; for what is the 
melody of Osiris, consisting of the "seven vowels" formed into a hymn, but--the 

Now, this Ninus, or "Son," borne in the arms of the Babylonian Madonna, is so described as very 
clearly to identify him with Nimrod. "Ninus, king of the Assyrians," * says Tragus Pompeius, 
epitomised by Justin, "first of all changed the contented moderation of the ancient manners, 
incited by a new passion, the desire of conquest. He was the first who carried on war against his 
neighbours, and he conquered all nations from Assyria to Lybia, as they were yet unacquainted 
with the arts of war." 

* The name, "Assyrians," as has already been noticed, has a wide latitude of 
meaning among the classic authors, taking in the Babylonians as well as the 
Assyrians proper. 

This account points directly to Nimrod, and can apply to no other. The account of Diodorus 
Siculus entirely agrees with it, and adds another trait that goes still further to determine the 
identity. That account is as follows: "Ninus, the most ancient of the Assyrian kings mentioned in 
history, performed great actions. Being naturally of a warlike disposition, and ambitious of glory 
that results from valour, he armed a considerable number of young men that were brave and 
vigorous like himself, trained them up a long time in laborious exercises and hardships, and by 
that means accustomed them to bear the fatigues of war, and to face dangers with intrepidity." As 
Diodorus makes Ninus "the most ancient of the Assyrian kings," and represents him as beginning 
those wars which raised his power to an extraordinary height by bringing the people of 
Babylonia under subjection to him, while as yet the city of Babylon was not in existence, this 
shows that he occupied the very position of Nimrod, of whom the Scriptural account is, that he 
first "began to be mighty on the earth," and that the 'beginning of his kingdom was Babylon." As 
the Babel builders, when their speech was confounded, were scattered abroad on the face of the 
earth, and therefore deserted both the city and the tower which they had commenced to build, 
Babylon as a city, could not properly be said to exist till Nimrod, by establishing his power there, 
made it the foundation and starting-point of his greatness. In this respect, then, the story of Ninus 
and of Nimrod exactly harmonise. The way, too, in which Ninus gained his power is the very 
way in which Nimrod erected his. There can be no doubt that it was by inuring his followers to 
the toils and dangers of the chase, that he gradually formed them to the use of arms, and so 
prepared them for aiding him in establishing his dominions; just as Ninus, by training his 
companions for a long time "in laborious exercises and hardships," qualified them for making 
him the first of the Assyrian kings. 

The conclusions deduced from these testimonies of ancient history are greatly strengthened by 
many additional considerations. In Genesis 10:11, we find a passage, which, when its meaning is 
properly understood, casts a very steady light on the subject. That passage, as given in the 
authorised version, runs thus: "Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh." This 
speaks of it as something remarkable, that Asshur went out of the land of Shinar, while yet the 
human race in general went forth from the same land. It goes upon the supposition that Asshur 
had some sort of divine right to that land, and that he had been, in a manner, expelled from it by 
Nimrod, while no divine right is elsewhere hinted at in the context, or seems capable of proof. 
Moreover, it represents Asshur as setting up in the IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOURHOOD of 


Nimrod as mighty a kingdom as Nimrod himself, Asshur building four cities, one of which is 
emphatically said to have been "great" (v 12); while Nimrod, on this interpretation, built just the 
same number of cities, of which none is specially characterised as "great." Now, it is in the last 
degree improbable that Nimrod would have quietly borne so mighty a rival so near him. To 
obviate such difficulties as these, it has been proposed to render the words, "out of that land he 
(Nimrod) went forth into Asshur, or Assyria." But then, according to ordinary usage of grammar, 
the word in the original should have been "Ashurah," with the sign of motion to a place affixed 
to it, whereas it is simply Asshur, without any such sign of motion affixed. I am persuaded that 
the whole perplexity that commentators have hitherto felt in considering this passage, has arisen 
from supposing that there is a proper name in the passage, where in reality no proper name 
exists. Asshur is the passive participle of a verb, which, in its Chaldee sense, signifies "to make 
strong," and, consequently, signifies "being strengthened," or "made strong." Read thus, the 
whole passage is natural and easy (v 10), "And the beginning of his (Nimrod's) kingdom was 
Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh." A beginning naturally implies something to succeed, 
and here we find it (v 11): "Out of that land he went forth, being made strong, or when he had 
been made strong (Ashur), and builded Nineveh," &c. Now, this exactly agrees with the 
statement in the ancient history of Justin: "Ninus strengthened the greatness of his acquired 
dominion by continued possession. Having subdued, therefore, his neighbours, when, by an 
accession of forces, being still further strengthened, he went forth against other tribes, and every 
new victory paved the way for another, he subdued all the peoples of the East." Thus, then, 
Nimrod, or Ninus, was the builder of Nineveh; and the origin of the name of that city, as "the 
habitation of Ninus," is accounted for, * and light is thereby, at the same time, cast on the fact, 
that the name of the chief part of the ruins of Nineveh is Nimroud at this day. 

* Nin-neveh, "The habitation of Ninus." 

Now, assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what is 
otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms the truth of that 
assumption itself. Ninus is said to have been the son of Belus or Bel, and Bel is said to have been 
the founder of Babylon. If Ninus was in reality the first king of Babylon, how could Belus or 
Bel, his father, be said to be the founder of it? Both might very well be, as will appear if we 
consider who was Bel, and what we can trace of his doings. If Ninus was Nimrod, who was the 
historical Bel? He must have been Cush; for "Cush begat Nimrod" (Gen 10:8); and Cush is 
generally represented as having been a ringleader in the great apostacy. * But again, Cush, as the 
son of Ham, was Her-mes or Mercury; for Hermes is just an Egyptian synonym for the "son of 
Ham." ** 

* See GREGORIUS TURONENSIS, De rerum Franc. Gregory attributes to Cush 
what was said more generally to have befallen his son; but his statement shows 
the belief in his day, which is amply confirmed from other sources, that Cush had 
a pre-eminent share in leading mankind away from the true worship of God. 

** The composition of Her-mes is, first, from "Her," which, in Chaldee, is 
synonymous with Ham, or Khem, "the burnt one." As "her" also, like Ham, 
signified "The hot or burning one," this name formed a foundation for covertly 
identifying Ham with the "Sun," and so deifying the great patriarch, after whose 
name the land of Egypt was called, in connection with the sun. Khem, or Ham, in 
his own name was openly worshipped in later ages in the land of Ham 
(BUNSEN); but this would have been too daring at first. By means of "Her," the 


synonym, however, the way was paved for this. "Her" is the name of Horus, who 
is identified with the sun (BUNSEN), which shows the real etymology of the 
name to be from the verb to which I have traced it. Then, secondly, "Mes," is 
from Mesheh (or, without the last radical, which is omissible), Mesh, 'to draw 
forth." In Egyptian, we have Ms in the sense of "to bring forth" (BUNSEN, 
Hieroglyphical Signs), which is evidently a different form of the same word. In 
the passive sense, also, we find Ms used (BUNSEN, Vocabulary). The radical 
meaning of Mesheh in Stockii Lexicon, is given in Latin "Extraxit," and our 
English word "extraction," as applied to birth or descent, shows that there is a 
connection between the generic meaning of this word and birth. This derivation 
will be found to explain the meaning of the names of the Egyptian kings, 
Ramesses and Thothmes, the former evidently being "The son of Ra," or the Sun; 
the latter in like manner, being "The son of Thoth." For the very same reason Her- 
mes is the "Son of Her, or Ham," the burnt one--that is, Cush. 

Now, Hermes was the great original prophet of idolatry; for he was recognised by the pagans as 
the author of their religious rites, and the interpreter of the gods. The distinguished Gesenius 
identifies him with the Babylonian Nebo, as the prophetic god; and a statement of Hyginus 
shows that he was known as the grand agent in that movement which produced the division of 
tongues. His words are these: "For many ages men lived under the government of Jove 
[evidently not the Roman Jupiter, but the Jehovah of the Hebrews], without cities and without 
laws, and all speaking one language. But after that Mercury interpreted the speeches of men 
(whence an interpreter is called Hermeneutes), the same individual distributed the nations. Then 
discord began." * 

* HYGINUS, Fab. Phoroneus is represented as king at this time. 

Here there is a manifest enigma. How could Mercury or Hermes have any need to interpret the 
speeches of mankind when they "all spake one language"? To find out the meaning of this, we 
must go to the language of the Mysteries. Peresh, in Chaldee, signifies "to interpret"; but was 
pronounced by old Egyptians and by Greeks, and often by the Chaldees themselves, in the same 
way as "Peres," to "divide." Mercury, then, or Hermes, or Cush, "the son of Ham," was the 
"DIVIDER of the speeches of men." He, it would seem, had been the ringleader in the scheme 
for building the great city and tower of Babel; and, as the well known title of Hermes,- -"the 
interpreter of the gods," would indicate, had encouraged them, in the name of God, to proceed in 
their presumptuous enterprise, and so had caused the language of men to be divided, and 
themselves to be scattered abroad on the face of the earth. Now look at the name of Belus or Bel, 
given to the father of Ninus, or Nimrod, in connection with this. While the Greek name Belus 
represented both the Baal and Bel of the Chaldees, these were nevertheless two entirely distinct 
titles. These titles were both alike often given to the same god, but they had totally different 
meanings. Baal, as we have already seen, signified "The Lord"; but Bel signified "The 
Confounder." When, then, we read that Belus, the father of Ninus, was he that built or founded 
Babylon, can there be a doubt, in what sense it was that the title of Belus was given to him? It 
must have been in the sense of Bel the "Confounder." And to this meaning of the name of the 
Babylonian Bel, there is a very distinct allusion in Jeremiah 50:2, where it is said "Bel is 
confounded," that is, "The Confounder is brought to confusion." That Cush was known to Pagan 
antiquity under the very character of Bel, "The Confounder," a statement of Ovid very clearly 


proves. The statement to which I refer is that in which Janus "the god of gods," * from whom all 
the other gods had their origin, is made to say of himself: "The ancients... called me Chaos." 

* Janus was so called in the most ancient hymns of the Salii. (MACROB, Saturn.) 

Now, first this decisively shows that Chaos was known not merely as a state of confusion, but as 
the 'god of Confusion." But, secondly, who that is at all acquainted with the laws of Chaldaic 
pronunciation, does not know that Chaos is just one of the established forms of the name of Chus 
or Cush? * Then, look at the symbol of Janus, ** (see Fig. 7) whom "the ancients called Chaos," 
and it will be seen how exactly it tallies with the doings of Cush, when he is identified with Bel, 
"The Confounder." That symbol is a club; and the name of "a club" in Chaldee comes from the 
very word which signifies "to break in pieces, or scatter abroad." *** 

Fig. I. 

Janus and his Club 

* The name of Cush is also Khus, for sh frequently passes in Chaldee into s; and 
Khus, in pronunciation, legitimately becomes Khawos, or, without the digamma, 

** From Sir WM. BETHAM'S Etruscan Literature and Antiquities Investigated, 
1842. The Etruscan name on the reverse of a medal- -B el- athri, "Lord of spies," is 
probably given to Janus, in allusion to his well known title "Janus Tuens," which 
maybe rendered "Janus the Seer," or "All- seeing Janus." 

*** In Proverbs 25:18, a maul or club is "Mephaitz." In Jeremiah 51:20, the same 
word, without the Jod, is evidently used for a club (though, in our version, it is 
rendered battle-axe); for the use of it is not to cut asunder, but to "break in 
pieces." See the whole passage. 

He who caused the confusion of tongues was he who "broke" the previously united earth (Gen 
11:1) "in pieces," and "scattered" the fragments abroad. How significant, then, as a symbol, is the 
club, as commemorating the work of Cush, as Bel, the "Confounder"? And that significance will 
be all the more apparent when the reader turns to the Hebrew of Genesis 11:9, and finds that the 
very word from which a club derives its name is that which is employed when it is said, that in 
consequence of the confusion of tongues, the children of men were "scattered abroad on the face 
of all the earth." The word there used for scattering abroad is Hephaitz, which, in the Greek form 
becomes Hephaizt, * and hence the origin of the well known but little understood name of 
Hephaistos, as applied to Vulcan, "The father of the gods." ** 


* There are many instances of a similar change. Thus Botzra becomes in Greek, 
Bostra; and Mitzraim, Mestraim. 

** Vulcan, in the classical Pantheon, had not commonly so high a place, but in 
Egypt Hephaistos, or Vulcan, was called "Father of the gods." (AMMIANUS 

Hephaistos is the name of the ringleader in the first rebellion, as "The Scatterer abroad," as Bel is 
the name of the same individual as the "Confo under of tongues." Here, then, the reader may see 
the real origin of Vulcan's Hammer, which is just another name for the club of Janus or Chaos, 
"The god of Confusion"; and to this, as breaking the earth in pieces, there is a covert allusion in 
Jeremiah 50:23, where Babylon, as identified with its primeval god, is thus apostrophised: "How 
is the hammer of the whole earth cut asunder and broken" ! Now, as the tower- building was the 
first act of open rebellion after the flood, and Cush, as Bel, was the ringleader in it, he was, of 
course, the first to whom the name Merodach, "The great Rebel," * must have been given, and, 
therefore, according to the usual parallelism of the prophetic language, we find both names of the 
Babylonian god referred to together, when the judgment on Babylon is predicted: "Bel is 
confounded: Merodach is broken in pieces" (Jer 1:2). 

* Merodach comes from Mered, to rebel; and Dakh, the demonstrative pronoun 
affixed, which makes it emphatic, signifying "That" or "The great." 

The judgment comes upon the Babylonian god according to what he had done. As Bel, he had 
"confounded" the whole earth, therefore he is "confounded." As Merodach, by the rebellion he 
had stirred up, he had "broken" the united world in pieces; therefore he himself is "broken in 

So much for the historical character of Bel, as identified with Janus or Chaos, the god of 
confusion, with his symbolical club. * 

* While the names Bel and Hephaistos had the origin above referred to, they were 
not inappropriate names also, though in a different sense, for the war-gods 
descending from Cush, from whom Babylon derived its glory among the nations. 
The warlike deified kings of the line of Cush gloried in their power to carry 
confusion among their enemies, to scatter their armies, and to "break the earth in 
pieces" by their resistless power. To this, no doubt, as well as to the acts of the 
primeval Bel, there is allusion in the inspired denunciations of Jeremiah on 
Babylon. The phys ical sense also of these names was embodied in the club given 
to the Grecian Hercules- -the very club of Janus- -when, in a character quite 
different from that of the original Hercules, he was set up as the great reformer of 
the world, by mere physical force. When two-headed Janus with the club is 
represented, the two -fold representation was probably intended to represent old 
Cush, and young Cush or Nimrod, as combined. But the two- fold representation 
with other attributes, had reference also to another "Father of the gods," 
afterwards to be noticed, who had specially to do with water. 

Proceeding, then, on these deductions, it is not difficult to see how it might be said that Bel or 
Belus, the father of Ninus, founded Babylon, while, nevertheless, Ninus or Nimrod was properly 
the builder of it. Now, though Bel or Cush, as being specially concerned in laying the first 
foundations of Babylon, might be looked upon as the first king, as in some of the copies of 


"Eusebius' Chronicle" he is represented, yet it is evident, from both sacred history and profane, 
that he could never have reigned as king of the Babylonian monarchy, properly so called; and 
accordingly, in the Armenian version of the "Chronicle of Eusebius," which bears the undisputed 
palm for correctness and authority, his name is entirely omitted in the list of Assyrian kings, and 
that of Ninus stands first, in such terms as exactly correspond with the Scriptural account of 
Nimrod. Thus, then, looking at the fact that Ninus is currently made by antiquity the son of 
Belus, or Bel, when we have seen that the historical Bel is Cush, the identity of Ninus and 
Nimrod is still further confirmed. 

But when we look at what is said of Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, the evidence receives an 
additional development. That evidence goes conclusively to show that the wife of Ninus could be 
none other than the wife of Nimrod, and, further, to bring out one of the grand characters in 
which Nimrod, when deified, was adored. In Daniel 11:38, we read of a god called Ala Mahozine 
*— i.e., the "god of fortifications." 

* In our version, Ala Mahozim is rendered alternatively "god of forces," or "gods 
protectors." To the latter interpretation, there is this insuperable objection, that 
Ala is in the singular. Neither can the former be admitted; for Mahozim, or 
Mauzzim, does not signify "forces," or "armies," but "munitions," as it is also 
given in the margin--that is "fortifications." Stockius, in his Lexicon, gives us the 
definition of Mahoz in the singular, rober, arx, locus munitus, and in proof of the 
definition, the following examples:--Judges 6:26, "And build an altar to the Lord 
thy God upon the top of this rock" (Mahoz, in the margin "strong place"); and 
Daniel 11:19, "Then shall he turn his face to the fort (Mahoz) of his own land." 

Who this god of fortifications could be, commentators have found themselves at a loss to 
determine. In the records of antiquity the existence of any god of fortifications has been 
commonly overlooked; and it must be confessed that no such god stands forth there with any 
prominence to the ordinary reader. But of the existence of a goddess of fortifications, every one 
knows that there is the amplest evidence. That goddess is Cybele, who is universally represented 
with a mural or turreted crown, or with a fortification, on her head. Why was Rhea or Cybele 
thus represented? Ovid asks the question and answers it himself; and the answer is this: The 
reason he says, why the statue of Cybele wore a crown of towers was, "because she first erected 
them in cities." The first city in the world after the flood (from whence the commencement of the 
world itself was often dated) that had towers and encompassing walls, was Babylon; and Ovid 
himself tells us that it was Semiramis, the first queen of that city, who was believed to have 
"surrounded Babylon with a wall of brick." Semiramis, then, the first deified queen of that city 
and tower whose top was intended to reach to heaven, must have been the prototype of the 
goddess who "first made towers in cities." When we look at the Ephesian Diana, we find 
evidence to the very same effect. In general, Diana was depicted as a virgin, and the patroness of 
virginity; but the Ephesian Diana was quite different. She was represented with all the attributes 
of the Mother of the gods ( see Fig. 8) , and, as the Mother of the gods, she wore a turreted crown, 
such as no one can contemplate without being forcibly reminded of the tower of Babel. Now this 
tower- bearing Diana is by an ancient scholiast expressly identified with Semiramis.* 

* A scholiast on the Periergesis of Dionysius, says Layard i^Jineveh and its 
Remains), makes Semiramis the same as the goddess Artemis or Despoina. Now, 
Artemis was Diana, and the title of Despoina given to her, shows that it was in the 
character of the Ephesian Diana she was identified with Semiramis; for Despoina 


is the Greek for Domina, "The Lady," the peculiar title of Rhea or Cybele, the 
tower-bearing goddess, in ancient Rome. (OVID, Fasti) 

Fig. S. 

Diana of Ephesug.* 

* From Kitto's Illustrated Commentary, vol. v. p. 205. 

When, therefore, we remember that Rhea or Cybele, the tower-bearing goddess, was, in point of 
fact, a Babylonian goddess, and that Semiramis, when deified, was worshipped under the name 


of Rhea, there will remain, I think, no doubt as to the personal identity of the "goddess of 

Now there is no reason to believe that Semiramis alone (though some have represented the 
matter so) built the battlements of Babylon. We have the express testimony of the ancient 
historian, Megasthenes, as preserved by Abydenus, that it was "Belus" who "surrounded Babylon 
with a wall." As "Bel," the Confounder, who began the city and tower of Babel, had to leave both 
unfinished, this could not refer to him. It could refer only to his son Ninus, who inherited his 
father's title, and who was the first actual king of the Babylonian empire, and, consequently 
Nimrod. The real reason that Semiramis, the wife of Ninus, gained the glory of finishing the 
fortifications of Babylon, was, that she came in the esteem of the ancient idolaters to hold a 
preponderating position, and to have attributed to her all the different characters that belonged, or 
were supposed to belong, to her husband. Having ascertained, then, one of the characters in 
which the deified wife was worshipped, we may from that conclude what was the corresponding 
character of the deified husband. Layard distinctly indicates his belief that Rhea or Cybele, the 
"tower-crown" goddess, was just the female counterpart of the "deity presiding over bulwarks or 
fortresses" and that this deity was Ninus, or Nimrod, we have still further evidence from what the 
scattered notices of antiquity say of the first deified king of Babylon, under a name that identifies 
him as the husband of Rhea, the "tower-bearing" goddess. That name is Kronos or Saturn. * 

* In the Greek mythology, Kronos and Rhea are commonly brother and sister. 
Ninus and Semiramis, according to history, are not represented as standing in any 
such relation to one another; but this is no objection to the real identity of Ninus 
and Kronos; for, 1st, the relationships of the divinities, in most countries, are 
peculiarly conflicting--Osiris, in Egypt, is represented at different times, not only 
as the son and husband of Isis, but also as her father and brother (BUNSEN); 
then, secondly, whatever the deified mortals might be before deification, on being 
deified they came into new relationships. On the apotheosis of husband and wife, 
it was necessary for the dignity of both that both alike should be represented as of 
the same celestial origin- -as both supernaturally the children of God. Before the 
flood, the great sin that brought ruin on the human race was, that the "Sons of 
God" married others than the daughters of God,— m other words, those who were 
not spiritually their "sisters." (Gen 6:2,3) In the new world, while the influence of 
Noah prevailed, the opposite practice must have been strongly inculcated; for a 
"son of God" to marry any one but a daughter of God, or his own "sister" in the 
faith, must have been a misalliance and a disgrace. Hence, from a perversion of a 
spiritual idea, came, doubtless, the notion of the dignity and purity of the royal 
line being preserved the more intact through the marriage of royal brothers and 
sisters. This was the case in Peru (PRESCOTT), in India (HARDY), and in Egypt 
(WILKINSON). Hence the relation of Jupiter to Juno, who gloried that she was 
"soror et conjux"--" sister and wife "--of her husband. Hence the same relation 
between Isis and her husband Osiris, the former of whom is represented as 
"lamenting her brother Osiris." (BUNSEN) For the same reason, no doubt, was 
Rhea, made the sister of her husband Kronos, to show her divine dignity and 

It is well known that Kronos, or Saturn, was Rhea's husband; but it is not so well known who 
was Kronos himself. Traced back to his original, that divinity is proved to have been the first 


king of Babylon. Theophilus of Antioch shows that Kronos in the east was worshipped under the 
names of Bel and Bal; and from Eusebius we learn that the first of the Assyrian kings, whose 
name was Belus, was also by the Assyrians called Kronos. As the genuine copies of Eusebius do 
not admit of any Belus, as an actual king of Assyria, prior to Ninus, king of the Babylonians, and 
distinct from him, that shows that Ninus, the first king of Babylon, was Kronos. But, further, we 
find that Kronos was king of the Cyclops, who were his brethren, and who derived that name 
from him, * and that the Cyclops were known as "the inventors of tower- building." 

* The scholiast upon EURIPIDES, Orest, says that "the Cyclops were so called 
from Cyclops their king." By this scholiast the Cyclops are regarded as a Thracian 
nation, for the Thracians had localised the tradition, and applied it to themselves; 
but the following statement of the scholiast on the Prometheus of Aeschylus, 
shows that they stood in such a relation to Kronos as proves that he was their 
king: "The Cyclops... were the brethren of Kronos, the father of Jupiter." 

The king of the Cyclops, "the inventors of tower-building," occupied a position exactly 
correspondent to that of Rhea, who "first erected (towers) in cities." If, therefore, Rhea, the wife 
of Kronos, was the goddess of fortifications, Kronos or Saturn, the husband of Rhea, that is, 
Ninus or Nimrod, the first king of Babylon, must have been Ala mahozin, "the god of 
fortifications.' 4 


The name "Ala-Mahozim" is never, as far as I know, found in any ancient uninspired author, and in the Scripture 
itself it is found only in a prophecy. Considering that the design of prophecy is always to leave a certain obscurity 
before the event, though giving enough of light for the practical guidance of the upright, it is not to be wondered at 
that an unusual word should be employed to describe the divinity in question. But, though this precise name be not 
found, we have a synonym that can be traced home to Nimrod. In Sanchuniathon, "Astarte, traveling about the 
habitable world," is said to have found "a star falling through the air, which she took up and consecrated in the holy 
island Tyre. " Now what is this story of the falling star but just another version of the fall of Mulciber from heaven, 
or of Nimrod from his high estate? for as we have already seen, Macrobius shows {Saturn .) that the story of Adonis - 
-the lamented one-so favourite a theme in Phoenicia, originally came from Assyria. The name of the great god in 
the holy island of Tyre, as is well known, was Melkart (KITTO'S Illus. Comment.), but this name, as brought from 
Tyre to Carthage, and fro m thence to Malta (which was colonised from Carthage), where it is found on a monument 
at this day, cast no little light on the subject. The name Melkart is thought by some to have been derived from 
Melek-eretz, or "king of the earth" (WILKINSON); but the way in which it is sculptured in Malta shows that it was 
really Melek-kart, "king of the walled city." Kir, the same as the Welsh Caer, found in Caer-narvon, &c, signifies 
"an encompassing wall," or a "city completely walled round"; and Kart was the feminine form of the same word, as 
may be seen in the different forms of the name of Carthage, which is sometimes Car-chedon, and sometimes Cart- 
hada or Cart-hago. In the Book of Proverbs we find a slight variety of the feminine form of Kart, which seems 
evidently used in the sense of a bulwark or a fortification. Thus (Prov 10:15) we read: "A rich man's wealth is his 
strong city (Karit), that is, his strong bulwark or defence." Melk-kart, then, "king of the walled city," conveys the 
very same idea as Ala-Mahozim. In GRUTER'S Inscriptions, as quoted by Bryant, we find a title also given to Mars, 
the Roman war-god, exactly coincident in meaning with that of Melkart. We have elsewhere seen abundant reason 
to conclude that the original of Mars was Nimrod. The title to which I refer confirms this conclusion, and is 
contained in a Roman inscription on an ancient temple in Spain. This title shows that the temple was dedicated to 
"Mars Kir-aden," the lord of "The Kir," or "walled city." The Roman C, as is well known, is hard, like K; and Adon, 
"Lord," is also Aden. Now, with this clue to guide us, we can unravel at once what has hitherto greatly puzzled 
mythologists in regard to the name of Mars Quirinus as distinguished from Mars Gradivus. The K in Kir is what in 
Hebrew or Chaldee is called Koph, a different letter from Kape, and is frequently pronounced as a Q. Quir-inus, 
therefore, signifies "belonging to the 93 walled city," and refers to the security which was given to cities by 
encompassing walls. Gradivus, on the other hand, comes from "Grah," "conflict," and "divus," "god" -a different 
form of Deus, which has been already shown to be a Chaldee term; and therefore signifies "God of battle." Both 


&B- 9. 

From HYDE'S Religio Veterum Persarum, cap. 4, p. 1 16. 

The name Kronos itself goes not a little to confirm the argument. Kronos signifies "The Horned 
one." As a horn is a well known Oriental emblem for power or might, Kronos, "The Horned 
one," was, according to the mystic system, just a synonym for the Scriptural epithet applied to 
Nimrod--viz., Gheber, "The mighty one" (Gen 10:8), "He began to be mighty on the earth." The 
name Kronos, as the classical reader is well aware, is applied to Saturn as the "Father of the 
gods." We have already had another "father of the gods" brought under our notice, even Cush in 
his character of Bel the Confounder, or Hephaistos, "The Scatterer abroad"; and it is easy to 
understand how, when the deification of mortals began, and the "mighty" Son of Cush was 
deified, the father, especially considering the part which he seems to have had in concocting the 
whole idolatrous system, would have to be deified too, and of course, in his character as the 
Father of the "Mighty one," and of all the "immortals" that succeeded him. But, in point of fact, 
we shall find, in the course of our inquiry, that Nimrod was the actual Father of the gods, as 
being the first of deified mortals; and that, therefore, it is in exact accordance with historical fact 
that Kronos, the Horned, or Mighty one, is, in the classic Pantheon, known by that title. 

The meaning of this name Kronos, "The Horned one," as applied to Nimrod, fully explains the 
origin of the remarkable symbol, so frequently occurring among the Nineveh sculptures, the 
gigantic HORNED man-bull, as representing the great divinities in Assyria. The same word that 
signified a bull, signified also a ruler or prince. * 

* The name for a bull or ruler, is in Hebrew without points, Shur, which in 
Chaldee becomes Tur. From Tur, in the sense of a bull, comes the Latin Taurus; 
and from the same word, in the sense of a ruler, Turannus, which originally had 
no evil meaning. Thus, in these well known classical words, we have evidence of 

these titles exactly answer to the two characters of Nimrod as the great city builder and the great warrior, and that 
both these distinctive characters were set forth by the two names referred to, we have distinct evidence in FUSS'S 
Antiquities. "The Romans," says he, "worshipped two idols of the kind [that is, gods under the name of Mars], the 
one called Quirinus, the guardian of the city and its peace; the other called Gradivus, greedy of war and slaughter, 
whose temple stood beyond the city's boundaries." 


the operation of the very principle which caused the deified Assyrian kings to be 
represented under the form of the man-bull. 

Figure 10: Assyrian Hercules, or Zernebogus* 

* From LA YARD'S Nineveh and Babylon, p. 605. 

Hence the "Horned bull" signified "The Mighty Prince," thereby pointing back to the first of 
those "Mighty ones," who, under the name of Guebres, Gabrs, or Cabiri, occupied so 
conspicuous a place in the ancient world, and to whom the deified Assyrian monarchs covertly 
traced back the origin of their greatness and might. This explains the reason why the Bacchus of 
the Greeks was represented as wearing horns, and why he was frequently addressed by the 
epithet "Bull- horned," as one of the high titles of his dignity. Even in comparatively recent times, 
Togrul Begh, the leader of the Seljukian Turks, who came from the neighbourhood of the 
Euphrates, was in a similar manner represented with three horns growing out of his head, as the 
emblem of his sovereignty ( Fig. 9 ). This, also, in a remarkable way accounts for the origin of 
one of the divinities worshipped by our Pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors under the name of 
Zernebogus. This Zernebogus was "the black, malevolent, ill-omened divinity," in other words, 
the exact counterpart of the popular idea of the Devil, as supposed to be black, and equipped 
with horns and hoofs. This name analysed and compared with the accompanying woodcut ( Fig. 
10) , from Layard, casts a very singular light on the source from whence has come the popular 
superstition in legard to the grand Adversary. The name Zer-Nebo-Gus is almost pure Chaldee, 
and seems to unfold itself as denoting "The seed of the prophet Cush." We have seen reason 
already to conclude that, under the name Bel, as distinguished from Baal, Cush was the great 
soothsayer or false prophet worshipped at Babylon. But independent inquirers have been led to 
the conclusion that Bel and Nebo were just two different titles for the same god, and that a 
prophetic god. Thus does Kitto comment on the words of Isaiah 46:1 "Bel boweth down, Nebo 
stoopeth," with reference to the latter name: "The word seems to come from Nibba, to deliver an 
oracle, or to prophesy; and hence would mean an 'oracle,' and may thus, as Calmet suggests 
('Commentaire Literal'), be no more than another name for Bel himself, or a characterising 
epithet applied to him; it being not unusual to repeat the same thing, in the same verse, in 


equivalent terms." "Zer-Nebo-Gus," the great "seed of the prophet Cush," was, of course, 
Nimrod; for Cush was Nimrod's father. Turn now to Layard, and see how this land of ours and 
Assyria are thus brought into intimate connection. In a woodcut, first we find "the Assyrian 
Hercules," that is "Nimrod the giant," as he is called in the Septuagint version of Genesis, 
without club, spear, or weapons of any kind, attacking a bull. Having overcome it, he sets the 
bull's horns on his head, as a trophy of victory and a symbol of power; and thenceforth the hero 
is represented, not only with the horns and hoofs above, but from the middle downwards, with 
the legs and cloven feet of the bull. Thus equipped he is represented as turning next to encounter 
a lion. This, in all likelihood, is intended to commemorate some event in the life of him who first 
began to be mighty in the chase and in war, and who, according to all ancient traditions, was 
remarkable also for bodily power, as being the leader of the Giants that rebelled against heaven. 
Now Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was black, in other words, was a Negro. "Can the Ethiopian 
change his skin?" is in the original, "Can the Cushite" do so? Keeping this, then, in mind, it will 
be seen that in that figure disentombed from Nineveh, we have both the prototype of the Anglo- 
Saxon Zer-Nebo-Gus, "the seed of the prophet Cush," and the real original of the black 
Adversary of mankind, with horns and hoofs. It was in a different character from that of the 
Adversary that Nimrod was originally worshipped; but among a people of a fair complexion, as 
the Anglo-Saxons, it was inevitable that, if worshipped at all, it must generally be simply as an 
object of fear; and so Kronos, "The Horned one," who wore the "horns," as the emblem both of 
his physical might and sovereign power, has come to be, in popular superstition, the recognised 
representative of the Devil. 

Jlr*n TTlTT tV\MM 

Fig. 11: Horned Head- Dresses 

See KITTO'S Illustrated Commentary, vol. iv. pp. 280-282 

In many and far- severed countries, horns became the symbols of sovereign power. The corona or 
crown, that still encircles the brows of European monarchs, seems remotely to be derived from 
the emblem of might adopted by Kronos, or Saturn, who, according to Pherecydes, was "the first 
before all others that ever wore a crown." The first regal crown appears to have been only a 
band, in which the horns were set. From the idea of power contained in the "horn," even 
subordinate rulers seem to have worn a circlet adorned with a single horn, in token of their 
derived authority. Bruce, the Abyssinian traveller gives examples of Abyssinian chiefs thus 


decorated ( Fig. 11 ), in regard to whom he states that the horn attracted his particular attention, 
when he perceived that the governors of provinces were distinguished by this head-dress.* 

* See KITTO'S Illustrated Commentary, vol. iv. pp. 280-282. In Fig. 11 , the two 
male figures are Abyssinian Chiefs. The two females, whom Kitto has grouped 
along with them, are ladies of Mount Lebanon, whose horned head-dresses 
Walpole regards as relics of the ancient worship of Astarte. (See above - and 
WALPOLE'S Ansayri, vol. iii. p. 16) 

F%. 13- 

Fig 12: Three- Horned Cap of Vishnu 

MAURICE, vol. iii. p. 353. London, 1793. 

In the case of sovereign powers, the royal head-band was adorned sometimes with a double, 
sometimes with a triple horn. The double horn had evidently been the original symbol of power 
or might on the part of sovereigns; for, on the Egyptian monuments, the heads of the deified 
royal personages have generally no more than the two horns to shadow forth their power. As 
sovereignty in Nimrod's case was founded on physical force, so the two horns of the bull were 
the symbols of that physical force. And, in accordance with this, we read in Sanchuniathon that 
"Astarte put on her own head a bull's head as the ensign of royalty." By-and-by, however, 
another and a higher idea came in, and the expression of that idea was seen in the symbol of the 
three horns. A cap seems in course of time to have come to be associated with the regal horns. In 
Assyria the three-horned cap was one of the "sacred emblems," in token that the power 
connected with it was of celestial origin,--the three horns evidently pointing at the power of the 
trinity. Still, we have indications that the horned band, without any cap, was anciently the corona 
or royal crown. The crown borne by the Hindoo god Vishnu, in his avatar of the Fish, is just an 
open circle or band, with three horns standing erect from it, with a knob on the top of each horn 
(Fig. 12) . All the avatars are represented as crowned with a crown that seems to have been 
modelled from this, consisting of a coronet with three points, standing erect from it, in which Sir 
William Jones recognises the Ethiopian or Parthian coronet. The open tiara of Agni, the Hindoo 


god of fire, shows in its lower round the double horn, made in the very same way as in Assyria, 
proving at once the ancient custom, and whence that custom had come. Instead of the three 
horns, three horn- shaped leaves came to be substituted (Fig. 13 ); and thus the horned band 
gradually passed into the modern coronet or crown with the three leaves of the fleur-de-lis, or 
other familiar three- leaved adornings. 

Fig. «. 

Fig 13: Tyrian Hercules 

Among the Red Indians of America there had evidently been something entirely analogous to the 
Babylonian custom of wearing the horns; for, in the "buffalo dance" there, each of the dancers 
had his head arrayed with buffalo's horns; and it is worthy of especial remark, that the "Satyric 
dance," * or dance of the Satyrs in Greece, seems to have been the counterpart of this Red Indian 
solemnity; for the satyrs were horned divinities, and consequently those who imitated their dance 
must have had their heads set off in imitation of theirs. 

* BRYANT. The Satyrs were the companions of Bacchus, and "danced along 
with him" i^elian Hist.) When it is considered who Bacchus was, and that his 
distinguishing epithet was "Bull- horned," the horns of the "Satyrs" will appear in 
their true light. For a particular mystic reason the Satyr's horn was commonly a 
goat's horn, but originally it must have been the same as Bacchus'. 

When thus we find a custom that is clearly founded on a form of speech that characteristically 
distinguished the region where Nimrod's power was wielded, used in so many different countries 
far removed from one another, where no such form of speech was used in ordinary life, we may 
be sure that such a custom was not the result of mere accident, but that it indicates the wide- 
spread diffusion of an influence that went forth in all directions from Babylon, from the time that 
Nimrod first "began to be mighty on the earth." 

There was another way in which Nimrod's power was symbolised besides by the "horn." A 
synonym for Gheber, "The mighty one," was "Abir," while "Aber" also signified a "wing." 
Nimrod, as Head and Captain of those men of war, by whom he surrounded himself, and who 
were the instruments of establishing his power, was "Baal-aberin," "Lord of the mighty ones." 
But "Baal-abirin" (pronounced nearly in the same way) signified "The winged one," * and 
therefore in symbol he was represented, not only as a horned bull, but as at once a horned and 


winged bull- -as showing not merely that he was mighty himself, but that he had mighty ones 
under his command, who were ever ready to carry his will into effect, and to put down all 
opposition to his power; and to shadow forth the vast extent of his might, he was represented 
with great and wide- expanding wings. 

* This is according to a peculiar Oriental idiom, of which there are many 
examples. Thus, Baal-aph, "lord of wrath," signifies "an angry man"; Baal- 
lashon, "lord of tongue," "an eloquent man"; Baal-hatsim, "lord of arrows," "an 
archer"; and in like manner, Baal-aberin, "lord of wings," signifies "winged one." 

en u. 

Snll from Ntonid. From yiUl, p , Jj fl . 

Fig. 14: Winged Bull from Nimrud 

Bull ttom Feiwpolfa. iMd. p. S20. 
Fig. 15: Winged Bull from Persepolis 

To this mode of representing the mighty kings of Babylon and Assyria, who imitated Nimrod 
and his successors, there is manifest allusion in Isaiah 8:6-8 "Forasmuch as this people refuseth 
the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and Remaliah's son; now therefore, 
behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river, strong and mighty, even the king 
of Assyria, and all his glory; and he shall come up over all his banks. And he shall pass through 
Judah; he shall overflow and go over; he shall reach even unto the neck; and the STRETCHING 
OUT OF HIS WINGS shall FILL the breadth of thy lard, O Immanuel." When we look at such 
figures as those which are here presented to the reader ( Figs. 14 and 15 ), with their great extent 
of expanded wing, as symbolising an Assyrian king, what a vividness and force does it give to 
the inspired language of the prophet! And how clear is it, also, that the stretching forth of the 
Assyrian monarch's WINGS, that was to "fill the breadth of Immanuel's land," has that very 
symbolic meaning to which I have referred- -viz., the overspreading of the land by his "mighty 
ones," or hosts of armed men, that the king of Babylon was to bring with him in his overflowing 
invasion! The knowledge of the way in which the Assyrian monarchs were represented, and of 
the meaning of that representation, gives additional force to the story of the dream of Cyrus the 
Great, as told by Herodotus. Cyrus, says the historian, dreamt that he saw the son of one of his 
princes, who was at the time in a distant province, with two great "wings on his shoulders, the 
one of which overshadowed Asia, and the other Europe," from which he immediately concluded 
that he was organising rebellion against him. The symbols of the Babylonians, whose capital 


Cyrus had taken, and to whose power he had succeeded, were entirely familiar to him; and if the 
"wings" were the symbols of sovereign power, and the possession of them implied the lordship 
over the might, or the armies of the empire, it is easy to see how very naturally any suspicions of 
disloyalty affecting the individual in question might take shape in the manner related, in the 
dreams of him who might harbour these suspicions. 

Now, the understanding of this equivocal sense of "Baal-aberin" can alone explain the 
remarkable statement of Aristophanes, that at the beginning of the world "the birds" were first 
created, and then after their creation, came the "race of the blessed immortal gods." This has 
been regarded as either an atheistical or nonsensical utterance on the part of the poet, but, with 
the true key applied to the language, it is found to contain an important historical fact. Let it only 
be borne in mind that "the birds"--that is, the "winged ones "--symbolised "the Lords of the 
mighty ones," and then the meaning is clear, viz., that men first "began to be mighty on the 
earth"; and then, that the "Lords" or Leaders of "these mighty ones" were deified. The knowledge 
of the mystic sense of this symbol accounts also for the origin of the story of Perseus, the son of 
Jupiter, miraculously born of Danae, who did such wondrous things, and who passed from 
country to country on wings divinely bestowed on him. This equally casts light on the symbolic 
myths in regard to Bellerophon, and the feats which he performed on his winged horse, and their 
ultimate disastrous issue; how high he mounted in the air, and how terrible was his fall; and of 
Icarus, the son of Daedalus, who, flying on wax-cemented wings over the Icarian Sea, had his 
wings melted off through his too near approach to the sun, and so gave his name to the sea where 
he was supposed to have fallen. The fables all referred to those who trade, or were supposed to 
have trodden, in the steps of Nimrod, the first "Lord of the mighty ones," and who in that 
character was symbolised as equipped with wings. 

Now, it is remarkable that, in the passage of Aristophanes already referred to, that speaks of the 
birds, or "the winged ones," being produced before the gods, we are informed that he from whom 
both "mighty ones" and gods derived their origin, was none other than the winged boy Cupid. * 

* Aristophanes says that Eros or Cupid produced the "birds" and "gods" by 
"mingling all things." This evidently points to the meaning of the name Bel, 
which signifies at once "the mingler" and "the confounder." This name properly 
belonged to the father of Nimrod, but, as the son was represented as identified 
with the father, we have evidence that the name descended to the son and others 
by inheritance. 

Cupid, the son of Venus, occupied, as will afterwards be proved, in the mystic mythology the 
very same position as Nin, or Ninus, "the son," did to Rhea, the mother of the gods. As Nimrod 
was unquestionably the first of "the mighty ones" after the Flood, this statement of Aristophanes, 
that the boy -god Cupid, himself a winged one, produced all the birds or "winged ones," while 
occupying the very position of Nin or Ninus, "the son," shows that in this respect also Ninus and 
Nimrod are identified. While this is the evident meaning of the poet, this also, in a strictly 
historical point of view, is the conclusion of the historian Apollodorus; for he states that "Ninus 
is Nimrod." And then, in conformity with this identity of Ninus and Nimrod, we find, in one of 
the most celebrated sculptures of ancient Babylon, Ninus and his wife Semiramis represented as 
actively engaged in the pursuits of the chase,-- "the quiver- bearing Semiramis" being a fit 
companion for "the mighty Hunter before the Lord." 


Sub-Section II 
The Child In Egypt 

When we turn to Egypt we find remarkable evidence of the same thing there also. Justin, as we 
have already seen, says that "Ninus subdued all nations, as far as Lybia," and consequently 
Egypt. The statement of Diodorus Siculus is to the same effect, Egypt being one of the countries 
that, according to him, Ninus brought into subjection to himself. In exact accordance with these 
historical statements, we find that the name of the third person in the primeval triad of Egypt was 
Khons. But Khons, in Egyptian, comes from a word that signifies "to chase." Therefore, the 
name of Khons, the son of Maut, the goddess- mother, who was adorned in such a way as to 
identify her with Rhea, the great goddess- mother of Chaldea, * properly signifies "The 
Huntsman," or god of the chase. 

* The distinguishing decoration of Maut was the vulture head-dress. Now the 
name of Rhea, in one of its meanings, signifies a vulture. 

As Khons stands in the very same relation to the Egyptian Maut as Ninus does to Rhea, how 
does this title of "The Huntsman" identify the Egyptian god with Nimrod? Now this very name 
Khons, brought into contact with the Roman mythology, not only explains the meaning of a 
name in the Pantheon there, that hitherto has stood greatly in need of explanation, but causes that 
name, when explained, to reflect light back again on this Egyptian divinity, and to strengthen the 
conclusion already arrived at. The name to which I refer is the name of the Latin god Consus, 
who was in one aspect identified with Neptune, but who was also regarded as "the god of hidden 
counsels," or "the concealer of secrets," who was looked up to as the patron of horsemanship, 
and was said to have produced the horse. Who could be the "god of ridden counsels," or the 
"concealer of secrets," but Saturn, the god of the "mysteries," and whose name as used at Rome, 
signified "The hidden one"? The father of Khons, or Ohonso (as he was also called), that is, 
Amoun, was, as we are told by Plutarch, known as "The hidden God"; and as father and son in 
the same triad have ordinarily a correspondence of character, this shows that Khons also must 
have been known in the very same character of Saturn, "The hidden one." If the Latin Consus, 
then, thus exactly agreed with the Egyptian Khons, as the god of "mysteries," or "hidden 
counsels," can there be a doubt that Khons, the Huntsman, also agreed with the same Roman 
divinity as the supposed producer of the horse? Who so likely to get the credit of producing the 
horse as the great huntsman of Babel, who no doubt enlisted it in the toils of the chase, and by 
this means must have been signally aided in his conflicts with the wild beasts of the forest? In 
this connection, let the reader call to mind that fabulous creature, the Centaur, half- man, half- 
horse, that figures so much in the mythology of Greece. That imaginary creation, as is generally 
admitted, was intended to commemorate the man who first taught the art of horsemanship. * 

* In illustration of the principle that led to the making of the image of the Centaur, 
the following passage may be given from PRESCOTT'S Mexico, as showing the 
feelings of the Mexicans on first seeing a man on horseback: "He [Cortes] ordered 
his men [who were cavalry] to direct their lances at the faces of their opponents, 
who, terrified at the monstrous apparition- -for they supposed the rider and the 
horse, which they had never before seen, to be one and the same— were seized 
with a panic." 


Fig. 16. 

Fig. 16: Centaur from Babylonia 
See Nineveh and Babylon, p. 250, and BRYANT, vol. iii. Plate, p. 245. 

Fig, n.t 

Fig. 17: Centaur from India* 

But that creation was not the offspring of Greek fancy. Here, as in many other things, the Greeks 
have only borrowed from an earlier source. The Centaur is found on coins struck in Babylonia 
(Fig. 16) , * showing that the idea must have originally come from that quarter. The Centaur is 
found in the Zodiac (Fig. 17) , the antiquity of which goes up to a high period, and which had its 
origin in Babylon. The Centaur was represented, as we are expressly assured by Berosus, the 
Babylonian historian, in the temple of Babylon, and his language would seem to show that so 
also it had been in primeval times. The Greeks did themselves admit this antiquity and derivation 


of the Centaur; for though Ixion was commonly represented as the father of the Centaurs, yet 
they also acknowledge that the primitive Centaurus was the same as Kronos, or Saturn, the father 
of the gods. ** 

* See Nineveh and Babylon, p. 250, and BRYANT, vol. iii. Plate, p. 245. 

** Scholiast in Lycophron, BRYANT. The Scholiast says that Chiron was the son 
of "Centaurus, that is, Kronos." If any one objects that, as Chiron is said to have 
lived in the time of the Trojan war, this shows that his father Kronos could not be 
the father of gods and men, Xenophon answers by saying "that Kronos was the 
brother of Jupiter." De Venatione 

But we have seen that Kronos was the first King of Babylon, or Nimrod; consequently, the first 
Centaur was the same. Now, the way in which the Centaur was represented on the Babylonian 
coins, and in the Zodiac, viewed in this light, is very striking. The Centaur was the same as the 
sign Sagittarius, or "The Archer." If the founder of Babylon's glory was "The mighty Hunter," 
whose name, even in the days of Moses, was a proverb--(Gen 10:9, "Wherefore, it is said, Even 
as Nimrod, the mighty hunter before the Lord")- -when we find the "Archer" with his bow and 
arrow, in the symbol of the supreme Babylonian divinity, and the "Archer," among the signs of 
the Zodiac that originated in Babylon, I think we may safely conclude that this Man-horse or 
Horse- man Archer primarily referred to him, and was intended to perpetuate the memory at once 
of his fame as a huntsman and his skill as a horse-breaker. 5 

Meaning of the Name Centaurus 

The ordinary classical derivation of this name gives little satisfaction; for, even though it could be derived from 
words that signify "Bull-killers" (and the derivation itself is but lame), such a meaning casts no light at all on the 
history of the Centaurs. Take it as a Chaldee word, and it will be seen at once that the whole history of the primitive 
Kentaurus entirely agrees with the history of Nimrod, with whom we have already identified him. Kentaurus is 
evidently derived from Kehn, "a priest," and Tor, "to go round." "Kehn-Tor," therefore, is "Priest of the revolver," 
that is, of the sun, which, to appearance, makes a daily revolution round the earth. The name for a priest, as written, 
is just Khn, and the vowel is supplied according to the different dialects of those who pronounce it, so as to make it 
either Kohn, Kahn, or Kehn. Tor, "the revolver," as applied to the sun, is evidently just another name for the Greek 
Zen or Zan applied to Jupiter, as identified with the sun, which signifies the "Encircler" or "Encompasser," —the very 
word from which comes our own word "Sun," which, in Anglo-Saxon, was Sunna (MALLET, Glossary), and of 
which we find distinct traces in Egypt in the term snnu (BUNSEN'S Vocab.), as applied to the sun's orbit. The 
Hebrew Zon or Zawon, to "encircle," from which these words come, in Chaldee becomes Don or Dawon, and thus 
we penetrate the meaning of the name given by the Boeotians to the "Mighty hunter," Orion. That name was 
Kandaon, as appears from the following words of the Scholiast on Lycophron, quoted in BRYANT: "Orion, whom 
the Boeotians call also Kandaon." Kahn-daon, then, and Kehn-tor, were just different names for the same office--the 
one meaning "Priest of the Encircler," the other, "Priest of the revolver" —titles evidently equivalent to that of Bol- 
kahn, or "Priest of Baal, or the Sun," which, there can be no doubt, was the distinguishing title of Nimrod. As the 
title of Centaurus thus exactly agrees with the known position of Nimrod, so the history of the father of the Centaurs 
does the same. We have seen already that, though Ixion was, by the Greeks, made the father of that mythical race, 
even they themselves admitted that the Centaurs had a much higher origin, and consequently that Ixion, which 
seems to be a Grecian name, had taken the place of an earlier name, according to that propensity particularly noticed 
by Salverte, which has often led mankind "to apply to personages known in one time and one country, myths which 
they have borrowed from another country and an earlier epoch" (Des Sciences). Let this only be admitted to be the 
case here -let only the name of Ixion be removed, and it will be seen that all that is said of the father of the Centaurs, 
or Horsemen-archers, applies exactly to Nimrod, as represented by the different myths that refer to the first 
progenitor of these Centaurs. First, then, Centaurus is represented as having been taken up to heaven (DYMOCK 
"Ixion"), that is, as having been highly exalted through special favour of heaven; then, in that state of exaltation, he 
is said to have fallen in love with Nephele, who passed under the name of Juno, the "Queen of Heaven." The story 


Now, when we thus compare the Egyptian Khons, the "Huntsman," with the Latin Consus, the 
god of horse-races, who "produced the horse," and the Centaur of Babylon, to whom was 
attributed the honour of being the author of horsemanship, while we see how all the lines 
converge in Babylon, it will be very clear, I think, whence the primitive Egyptian god Khons has 
been derived. 

Khons, the son of the great goddess- mother, seems to have been generally represented as a full- 
grown god. The Babylonian divinity was also represented very frequently in Egypt in the very 
same way as in the land of his nativity-- i.e., as a child in his mother's arms. * 

* One of the symbols with which Khons was represented, shows that even he was 
identified with the child-god; "for," says Wilkinson, "at the side of his head fell 
the plaited lock of Harpocrates, or childhood." 

This was the way in which Osiris, "the son, the husband of his mother," was often exhibited, and 
what we learn of this god, equally as in the case of Khons, shows that in his original he was none 
other than Nimrod. It is admitted that the secret system of Free Masonry was originally founded 
on the Mysteries of the Egyptian Isis, the goddess- mother, or wife of Osiris. But what could have 
led to the union of a Masonic body with these Mysteries, had they not had particular reference to 
architecture, and had the god who was worshipped in them not been celebrated for his success in 
perfecting the arts of fortification and building? Now, if such were the case, considering the 
relation in which, as we have already seen, Egypt stood to Babylon, who would naturally be 
looked up to there as the great patron of the Masonic art? The strong presumption is, that Nimrod 

here is intentionally confused, to mystify the vulgar, and the order of events seems changed, which can easily be 
accounted for. As Nephele in Greek signifies "a cloud," so the offspring of Centaurus are said to have been produced 
by a "cloud." But Nephele, in the language of the country where the fable was originally framed, signified "A fallen 
woman," and it is from that "fallen woman," therefore, that the Centaurs are really said to have sprung. Now, the 
story of Nimrod, as Ninus, is, that he fell in love with Semiramis when she was another man's wife, and took her for 
his own wife, whereby she became doubly fallen- -fallen as a woman *- and fallen from the primitive faith in which 
she must have been brought up; and it is well known that this "fallen woman" was, under the name of Juno, or the 
Dove, after her death, worshipped among the Babylonians. 

* Nephele was used, even in Greece, as the name of a woman, the degraded wife of Athamas being so called. (SMITH'S 
Class. Diet., "Athamas") 

Centaurus, for his presumption and pride, was smitten with lightning by the supreme God, and cast down to hell 
(DYMOCK, "Ixion"). This, then, is just another version of the story of Phaethon, Aesculapius, and Orpheus, who 
were all smitten in like manner and for a similar cause. In the infernal world, the father of the Centaurs is 
represented as tied by serpents to a wheel which perpetually revolves, and thus makes his punishment eternal 
(DYMOCK). In the serpents there is evidently reference to one of the two emblems of the fire-worship of Nimrod. If 
he introduced the worship of the serpent, as I have endeavoured to show, there was poetical justice in making the 
serpent an instrument of his punishment. Then the revolving wheel very clearly points to the name Centaurus itself, 
as denoting the "Priest of the revolving sun." To the worship of the sun in the character of the "Revolver," there was 
a very distinct allusion not only in the circle which, among the Pagans, was the emblem of the sun-god, and the 
blazing wheel with which he was so frequently represented (WILSON'S Parsi Religion), but in the circular dances 
of the Bacchanalians. Hence the phrase, "Bassaridum rotator Evan"~"The wheeling Evan of the Bacchantes" 
(STATIUS, Sylv.). Hence, also, the circular dances of the Druids as referred to in the following quotation from a 
Druidic song: "Ruddy was the sea beach whilst the circular revolution was performed by the attendants and the 
white bands in graceful extravagance" (DAVIES'S Druids). That this circular dance among the Pagan idolaters 
really had reference to the circuit of the sun, we find from the distinct statement of Lucian in his treatise On 
Dancing, where, speaking of the circular dance of the ancient Eastern nations, he says, with express reference to the 
sun-god, "it consisted in a dance imitating this god." We see then, here, a very specific reason for the circular dance 
of the Bacchae, and for the ever-revolving wheel of the great Centaurus in the infernal regions. 


must have been the nan. He was the first that gained fame in this way. As the child of the 
Babylonian goddess- mother, he was worshipped, as we have seen, in the character of Ala 
mahozim, "The god of fortifications." Osiris, in like manner, the child of the Egyptian Madonna, 
was equally celebrated as "the strong chief of the buildings." This strong chief of the buildings 
was originally worshipped in Egypt with every physical characteristic of Nimrod. I have already 
noticed the fact that Nimrod, as the son of Cush, was a Negro. Now, there was a tradition in 
Egypt, recorded by Plutarch, that "Osiris was black," which, in a land where the general 
complexion was dusky, must have implied something more than ordinary in its darkness. 
Plutarch also states that Horus, the son of Osiris, "was of a fair complexion," and it was in this 
way, for the most part, that Osiris was represented. But we have unequivocal evidence that 
Osiris, the son and husband of the great goddess-queen of Egypt, was also represented as a 
veritable Negro. In Wilkinson may be found a representation of him ( Fig. 18 ) with the 
unmistakable features of the genuine Cushite or Negro. Bunsen would have it that this is a mere 
random importation from some of the barbaric tribes; but the dress in which this Negro god is 
arrayed tells a different tale. That dress directly connects him with Nimrod. This Negro- featured 
Osiris is clothed from head to foot in a spotted dress, the upper part being a leopard's skin, the 
under part also being spotted to correspond with it. Now the name Nimrod * signifies "the 
subduer of the leopard." 

fi*. it 

Fig. 18: Osiris of Egypt 

WILKINSON, vol. vi. Plate 33. 

* "Nimr-rod"; from Nimr, a "leopard," and rada or rad "to subdue." According to 
invariable custom in Hebrew, when two consonants come together as the two rs in 
Nimr-rod, one of them is sunk. Thus Nin-neveh, "The habitation of Ninus," 
becomes Nineveh. The name Nimrod is commonly derived from Mered, "to 
rebel"; but a difficulty has always been found in regard to this derivation, as that 


would make the name Nimrod properly passive not "the rebel," but "he who was 
rebelled against." There is no doubt that Nimrod was a rebel, and that his 
rebellion was celebrated in ancient myths; but his name in that character was not 
Nimrod, but Merodach, or, as among the Romans, Mars, "the rebel"; or among the 
Oscans of Italy, Mamers (SMITH), "The causer of rebellion." That the Roman 
Mars was really, in his original, the Babylonian god, is evident from the name 
given to the goddess, who was recognised sometimes as his "sister," and 
sometimes as his "wife"--i.e., Bellona, which, in Chaldee, signifies, "The 
Lamenter of Bel" (from Bel and onah, to lament). The Egyptian Isis, the sister and 
wife of Osiris, is in like manner represented, as we have seen, as lamenting her 
brother Osiris." (BUNSEN) 

This name seems to imply, that as Nimrod had gained fame by subduing the horse, and so 
making use of it in the chase, so his fame as a huntsman rested mainly on this, that he found out 
the art of making the leopard aid him in hunting the other wild beasts. A particular kind of tame 
leopard is used in India at this day for hunting; and of Bagajet I, the Mogul Emperor of India, it 
is recorded that in his hunting establishment he had not only hounds of various breeds, but 
leopards also, whose "collars were set with jewels." Upon the words of the prophet Habakkuk 
1:8, "swifter than leopards," Kitto has the following remarks:-- "The swiftness of the leopard is 
proverbial in all countries where it is found. This, conjoined with its other qualities, suggested 
the idea in the East of partially training it, that it might be employed in hunting... Leopards are 
now rarely kept for hunting in Western Asia, unless by kings and governors; but they are more 
common in the eastern parts of Asia. Orosius relates that one was sent by the king of Portugal to 
the Pope, which excited great astonishment by the way in which it overtook, and the facility with 
which it killed, deer and wild boars. Le Bruyn mentions a leopard kept by the Pasha who 
governed Gaza, and the other territories of the ancient Philistines, and which he frequently 
employed in hunting jackals. But it is in India that the cheetah, or hunting leopard, is most 
frequently employed, and is seen in the perfection of his power." This custom of taming the 
leopard, and pressing it into the service of man in this way, is traced up to the earliest times of 
primitive antiquity. In the works of Sir William Jones, we find it stated from the Persian legends, 
that Hoshang, the father of Tahmurs, who built Babylon, was the "first who bred dogs and 
leopards for hunting." As Tahmurs, who built Babylon, could be none other than Nimrod, this 
legend only attributes to his father what, as his name imports, he got the fame of doing himself. 
Now, as the classic god bearing the lion's skin is recognised by that sign as Hercules, the slayer 
of the Nemean lion, so in like manner, the god clothed in the leopard's skin would naturally be 
marked out as Nimrod, the "leopard- subduer." That this leopard skin, as appertaining to the 
Egyptian god, was no occasional thing, we have clearest evidence. Wilkinson tells us, that on all 
high occasions when the Egyptian high priest was called to officiate, it was indispensable that he 
should do so wearing, as his robe of office, the leopard's skin (Fig. 19) . As it is a universal 
principle in all idolatries that the high priest wears the insignia of the god he serves, this indicates 
the importance which the spotted skin must have had attached to it as a symbol of the god 
himself. The ordinary way in which the favourite Egyptian divinity Osiris was mystically 
represented was under the form of a young bull or calf- -the calf Apis- -from which the golden 
calf of the Israelites was borrowed. There was a reason why that calf should not commonly 
appear in the appropriate symbols of the god he represented, for that calf represented the divinity 
in the character of Saturn, "The HIDDEN one," "Apis" being only another name for Saturn. * 


* The name of Apis in Egyptian is Hepi or Hapi, which is evidently from the 
Chaldee "Hap," "to cover." In Egyptian Hap signifies "to conceal." (BUNSEN) 

Vit- 1». 

Fig. 19: Egyptian High- Priest 

WILKINSON, vol. iv. pp. 341, 353 

F%. 30. 

Egyptian OWf Idol. 

Fig. 20: Egyptian Calf- Idol 


The cow of Athor, however, the female divinity corresponding to Apis, is well known as a 
"spotted cow," (WILKINSON) and it is singular that the Druids of Britain also worshipped "a 
spotted cow" (DAVIES'S Druids). Rare though it be, however, to find an instance of the deified 
calf or young bull represented with the spots, there is evidence still in existence, that even it was 
sometimes so represented. The accompanying figure ( Fig. 20) represents that divinity, as copied 
by Col. Hamilton Smith "from the original collection made by the artists of the French Institute 
of Cairo." When we find that Osiris, the grand god of Egypt, under different forms, was thus 
arrayed in a leopard's skin or spotted dress, and that the leopard- skin dress was so indispensable 
a part of the sacred robes of his high priest, we may be sure that there was a deep meaning in 
such a costume. And what could that meaning be, but just to identify Osiris with the Babylonian 
god, who was celebrated as the "Leopard-tamer," and who was worshipped even as he was, as 
Ninus, the CHILD in his mother's arms? 

Sub-Section III 
The Child in Greece 

Thus much for Egypt. Coming into Greece, not only do we find evidence there to the same 
effect, but increase of that evidence. The god worshipped as a child in the arms of the great 
Mother in Greece, under the names of Dionysus, or Bacchus, or Iacchus, is, by ancient inquirers, 
expressly identified with the Egyptian Osiris. This is the case with Herodotus, who had 
prosecuted his inquiries in Egypt itself, who ever speaks of Osiris as Bacchus. To the same 
purpose is the testimony of Diodorus Siculus. "Orpheus," says he, "introduced from Egypt the 
greatest part of the mystical ceremonies, the orgies that celebrate the wanderings of Ceres, and 
the whole fable of the shades below. The rites of Osiris and Bacchus are the same; those of Isis 
and Ceres exactly resemble each other, except in name." Now, as if to identify Bacchus with 
Nimrod, "the Leopard- tamer," leopards were employed to draw his car; he himself was 
represented as clothed with a leopard's skin; his priests were attired in the same manner, or when 
a leopard's skin was dispensed with, the spotted skin of a fawn was used as a priestly robe in its 
stead. This very custom of wearing the spotted fawn- skin seems to have been imported into 
Greece originally from Assyria, where a spotted fawn was a sacred emblem, as we learn from the 
Nineveh sculptures; for there we find a divinity bearing a spotted fawn or spotted fallow-deer 
(Fig. 21) , in his arm, as a symbol of some mysterious import. The origin of the importance 
attached to the spotted fawn and its skin had evidently come thus: When Nimrod, as "the 
Leopard- tamer," began to be clothed in the leopard- skin, as the trophy of his skill, his spotted 
dress and appearance must have impressed the imaginations of those who saw him; and he came 
to be called not only the "Subduer of the Spotted one" (for such is the precise meaning of Nimr-- 
the name of the leopard), but to be called 'The spotted one" himself. We have distinct evidence 
to this effect borne by Damascius, who tells us that the Babylonians called "the only son" of the 
great goddess- mother "Momis, or Moumis." Now, Momis, or Moumis, in Chaldee, like Nimr, 
signified "The spotted one." Thus, then, it became easy to represent Nimrod by the symbol of the 
"spotted fawn," and especially in Greece, and wherever a pronunciation akin to that of Greece 
prevailed. The name of Nimrod, as known to the Greeks, was Nebrod. * The name of the fawn, 
as "the spotted one," in Greece was Nebros; ** and thus nothing could be more natural than that 
Nebros, the "spotted fawn," should become a synonym for Nebrod himself. When, therefore, the 
Bacchus of Greece was symbolised by the Nebros, or "spotted fawn," as we shall find he was 
symbolised, what could be the design but just covertly to identify him with Nimrod? 


* In the Greek Septuagint, translated in Egypt, the name of Nimrod is "Nebrod." 

** Nebros, the name of the fawn, signifies "the spotted one." Nmr, in Egypt, 
would also become Nbr; for Bunsen shows that m and b in that land were often 


sig. n. 

Fig. 21: Assyrian Divinity, with Spotted Fallow- Deer 

VAUX's Nineveh and Persepolis, chap. viii. p. 233 

We have evidence that this god, whose emblem was the Nebros, was known as having the very 
lineage of Nimrod. From Anacreon, we find that a title of Bacchus was Aithiopais--i.e., "the son 
of Aethiops." But who was Aethiops? As the Aethiopians were Cushites, so Aethiops was Cush. 
"Chus," says Eusebius, "was he from whom came the Aethiopians." The testimony of Josephus is 
to the same effect. As the father of the Aethiopians, Cush was Aethiops, by way of eminence. 
Therefore Epiphanius, referring to the extraction of Nimrod, thus speaks: "Nimrod, the son of 
Cush, the Aethiop." Now, as Bacchus was the son of Aethiops, or Cush, so to the eye he was 
represented in that character. As Nin "the Son," he was portrayed as a youth or child; and that 
youth or child was generally depicted with a cup in his hand. That cup, to the multitude, 
exhibited him as the god of drunken revelry; and of such revelry in his orgies, no doubt there was 
abundance; but yet, after all, the cup was mainly a hieroglyphic, and that of the name of the god. 
The name of a cup, in the sacred language, was khus, and thus the cup in the hand of the youthful 
Bacchus, the son of Aethiops, showed that he was the young Chus, or the son of Chus. In the 
accompanying woodcut (Fig. 22) , the cup in the right hand of Bacchus is held up in so 
significant a way, as naturally to suggest that it must be a symbol; and as to the branch in the 
other hand, we have express testimony that it is a symbol. But it is worthy of notice that the 
branch has no leaves to determine what precise kind of a branch it is. It must, therefore, be a 
generic emblem for a branch, or a symbol of a branch in general; and, consequently, it needs the 
cup as its complement, to determine specifically what sort of a branch it is. The two symbols, 


then, must be read together, and read thus, they are just equivalent to--the "Branch of Chus"--i.e., 
"the scion or son of Cush." * 

* Everyone knows that Homer's odzos Areos, or "Branch of Mars," is the same as 
a "Son of Mars." The hieroglyphic above was evidently formed on the same 
principle. That the cup alone in the hand of the youthful Bacchus was intended to 
designate him "as the young Chus," or "the boy Chus," we may fairly conclude 
from a statement of Pausanias, in which he represents "the boy Kuathos" as acting 
the part of a cup-bearer, and presenting a cup to Hercules (PAUSANIAS 
Corinthiacd) Kuathos is the Greek for a "cup," and is evidently derived from the 
Hebrew Khus, "a cup," which, in one of its Chaldee forms, becomes Khuth or 
Khuath. Now, it is well known that the name of Cush is often found in the form of 
Cuth, and that name, in certain dialects, would be Cuath. The "boy Kuathos," 
then, is just the Greek form of the "boy Cush," or "the young Cush." 

Fig. 31. 

Fig. 22: Bacchus, with Cup and Branch 

From SMITH'S Classical Dictionary, p. 208 

There is another hieroglyphic connected with Bacchus that goes not a little to confirm this--that 
is, the Ivy branch. No emblem was more distinctive of the worship of Bacchus than this. 
Wherever the rites of Bacchus were performed, wherever his orgies were celebrated, the Ivy 
branch was sure to appear. Ivy, in some form or other, was essential to these celebrations. The 
votaries carried it in their hands, bound it around their heads, or had the Ivy leaf even indelibly 
stamped upon their persons. What could be the use, what could be the meaning of this? A few 
words will suffice to show it. In the first place, then, we have evidence that Kissos, the Greek 


name for Ivy, was one of the names of Bacchus; and further, that though the name of Cush, in its 
proper form, was known to the priests in the Mysteries, yet that the established way in which the 
name of his descendants, the Cushites, was ordinarily pronounced in Greece, was not after the 
Oriental fashion, but as "Kissaioi," or "Kissioi." Thus, Strabo, speaking of the inhabitants of 
Susa, who were the people of Chusistan, or the ancient land of Cush, says: "The Susians are 
called Kissioi," * --that is beyond all question, Cushites. 

* STRABO. In Hesychius, the name is Kissaioi. The epithet applied to the land of 
Cush in Aeschylus is Kissinos. The above accounts for one of the unexplained 
titles of Apollo. "Kisseus Apollon" is plainly "The Cushite Apollo." 

Now, if Kissioi be Cushites, then Kissos is Cush. Then, further, the branch of Ivy that occupied 
so conspicuous a place in all Bacchanalian celebrations was an express symbol of Bacchus 
himself; for Hesychius assures us that Bacchus, as represented by his priest, was known in the 
Mysteries as "The branch." From this, then, it appears how Kissos, the Greek name of Ivy, 
became the name of Bacchus. As the son of Cush, and as identified with him, he was sometimes 
called by his father's name--Kissos. His actual relation, however, to his father was specifically 
brought out by the Ivy branch, for "the branch of Kissos," which to the profane vulgar was only 
"the branch of Ivy," was to the initiated "The branch of Cush." * 

* The chaplet, or head-band of Ivy, had evidently a similar hieroglyphical 
meaning to the above, for the Greek "Zeira Kissou" is either a "band or circlet of 
Ivy," or "The seed of Cush." The formation of the Greek "Zeira," a zone or 
enclosing band, from the Chaldee Zer, to encompass, shows that Zero "the seed," 
which was also pronounced Zeraa, would, in like manner, in some Greek dialects, 
become Zeira. Kissos, "Ivy," h Greek, retains the radical idea of the Chaldee 
Khesha or Khesa, "to cover or hide," from which there is reason to believe the 
name of Cush is derived, for Ivy is characteristically "The coverer or hider." In 
connection with this, it may be stated that the second person of the Phoenician 
trinity was Chursorus (WILKINSON), which evidently is Chus-zoro, "The seed 
of Cush." We have already seen that the Phoenicians derived their mythology 
from Assyria. 

Now, this god, who was recognised as "the scion of Cush, " was worshipped under a name, 
which, while appropriate to him in his vulgar character as the god of the vintage, did also 
describe him as the great Fortifier. That name was Bassareus, which, in its two- fold meaning, 
signified at once "The houser of grapes, or the vintage gatherer," and "The Encompasser with a 
wall," * in this latter sense identifying the Grecian god with the Egyptian Osiris, "the strong chief 
of the buildings," and with the Assyrian "Belus, who encompassed Babylon with a wall." 

* Bassareus is evidently from the Chaldee Batzar, to which both Gesenius and 
Parkhurst give the two- fold meaning of "gathering in grapes," and "fortifying." 
Batzar is softened into Bazzar in the very same way as Nebuchadnetzar is 
pronounced Nebuchadnezzar. In the sense of "rendering a defence inaccessible," 
Gesenius adduces Jeremiah 51:53, "Though Babylon should mount up to heaven, 
and though she should fortify (tabatzar) the height of her strength, yet from me 
shall spoilers come unto her, saith the Lord." Here is evident reference to the two 
great elements in Babylon's strength, first her tower; secondly, her massive 
fortifications, or encompassing walls. In making the meaning of Batzar to be, "to 


render inaccessible," Gesenius seems to have missed the proper generic meaning 
of the term. Batzar is a compound verb, from Ba, "in," and Tzar, "to compass," 
exactly equivalent to our English word "en-compass." 

Thus from Assyria, Egypt, and Greece, we have cumulative and overwhelming evidence, all 
conspiring to demonstrate that the child worshipped in the arms of the goddess- mother in all 
these countries in the very character of Ninus or Nin, "The Son," was Nimrod, the son of Cush. 
A feature here, or an incident there, may have been borrowed from some succeeding hero; but t 
seems impossible to doubt, that of that child Nimrod was the prototype, the grand original. 

The amazing extent of the worship of this man indicates something very extraordinary in his 
character; and there is ample reason to believe, that in his own day he was an object of high 
popularity. Though by setting up as king, Nimrod invaded the patriarchal system, and abridged 
the liberties of mankind, yet he was held by many to have conferred benefits upon them, that 
amply indemnified them for the loss of their liberties, and covered him with glory and renown. 
By the time that he appeared, the wild beasts of the forest multiplying more rapidly than the 
human race, must have committed great depredations on the scattered and straggling populations 
of the earth, and must have inspired great terror into the minds of men. The danger arising to the 
lives of men from such a source as this, when population is scanty, is implied in the reason given 
by God Himself for not driving out the doomed Canaanites before Israel at once, though the 
measure of their iniquity was full (Exo 23:29,30): "I will not drive them out from before thee in 
one year, lest the land become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee. By little 
and little I will drive them out from before thee, until thou be increased." The exploits of 
Nimrod, therefore, in hunting down the wild beasts of the field, and ridding the world of 
monsters, must have gained for him the character of a pre-eminent benefactor of his race. By this 
means, not less than by the bands he trained, was his power acquired, when he first began to be 
mighty upon the earth; and in the same way, no doubt, was that power consolidated. Then, over 
and above, as the first great city- builder after the flood, by gathering men together in masses, and 
surrounding them with walls, he did still more to enable them to pass their days in security, free 
from the alarms to which they had been exposed in their scattered life, when no one could tell 
but that at any moment he might be called to engage in deadly conflict with prowling wild 
beasts, in defence of his own life and of those who were dear to him. Within the battlements of a 
fortified city no such danger from savage animals was to be dreaded; and for the security 
afforded in this way, men no doubt looked upon themselves as greatly indebted to Nimrod. No 
wonder, therefore, that the name of the "mighty hunter," who was at the same time the prototype 
of "the god of fortifications," should have become a name of renown. Had Nimrod gained 
renown only thus, it had been well. But not content with delivering men from the fear of wild 
beasts, he set to work also to emancipate them from that fear of the Lord which is the beginning 
of wisdom, and in which alone true happiness can be found. For this very thing, he seems to have 
gained, as one of the titles by which men delighted to honour him, the title of the "Emancipator," 
or "Deliverer." The reader may remember a name that has already come under his notice. That 
name is the name of Phoroneus. The era of Phoroneus is exactly the era of Nimrod. He lived 
about the time when men had used one speech, when the confusion of tongues began, and when 
mankind was scattered abroad. He is said to have been the first that gathered mankind into 
communities, the first of mortals that reigned, and the first that offered idolatrous sacrifices. This 
character can agree with none but that of Nimrod. Now the name given to him in connection with 
his "gathering men together," and offering idolatrous sacrifice, is very significant. Phoroneus, in 
one of its meanings, and that one of the most natural, signifies the "Apostate." * That name had 


very likely been given him by the uninfected portion of the sons of Noah. But that name had also 
another meaning, that is, "to set free"; and therefore his own adherents adopted it, and glorified 
the great "Apostate" from the primeval faith, though he was the first that abridged the liberties of 
mankind, as the grand "Emancipator!" ** And hence, in one form or other, this title was handed 
down to this deified successors as a title of honour. *** 

* From Pharo, also pronounced Pharang, or Pharong, "to cast off, to make naked, 
to apostatise, to set free." These meanings are not commonly given in this order, 
but as the sense of "casting off" explains all the other meanings, that warrants the 
conclusion that "to cast off" is the generic sense of the word. Now "apostacy" is 
very near akin to this sense, and therefore is one of the most natural. 

** The Sabine goddess Feronia had evidently a relation to Phoroneus, as the 
"Emancipator." She was believed to be the "goddess of liberty," because at 
Terracina (or Anuxur) slaves were emancipated in her temple (Servius, in 
Aeneid), and because the freedmen of Rome are recorded on one occasion to have 
collected a sum of money for the purpose of offering it in her temple. (SMITH'S 
Classical Dictionary, "Feronia") 

*** Thus we read of "Zeus Aphesio" (PAUSANIAS, Attica), that is "Jupiter 
Liberator" and of "Dionysus Eleuthereus" (PAUSANIAS), or "Bacchus the 
Deliverer." The name of Theseus seems to have had the same origin, from nthes 
"to loosen," and so to set free (the n being omissible). "The temple of Theseus" [at 
Athens] says POTTER "...was allowed the privilege of being a Sanctuary for 
slaves, and all those of mean condition that fled from the persecution of men in 
power, in memory that Theseus, while he lived, was an assister and protector of 
the distressed." 

All tradition from the earliest times bears testimony to the apostacy of Nimrod, and to his 
success in leading men away from the patriarchal faith, and delivering their minds from that awe 
of God and fear of the judgments of heaven that must have rested on them while yet the memory 
of the flood was recent. And according to all the principles of depraved human nature, this too, 
no doubt, was one grand element in his fame; for men will readily rally around any one who can 
give the least appearance of plausibility to any doctrine which will teach that they can be assured 
of happiness and heaven at last, though their hearts and natures are unchanged, and though they 
live without God in the world. 

How great was the boon conferred by Nimrod on the human race, in the estimation of ungodly 
men, by emancipating them from the impressions of true religion, and putting the authority of 
heaven to a distance from them, we find most vividly described in a Polynesian tradition, that 
carries its own evidence with it. John Williams, the well known missionary, tells us that, 
according to one of the ancient traditions of the islanders of the South Seas, "the heavens were 
originally so close to the earth that men could not walk, but were compelled to crawl" under 
them. "This was found a very serious evil; but at length an individual conceived the sublime idea 
of elevating the heavens to a more convenient height. For this purpose he put forth his utmost 
energy, and by the first effort raised them to the top of a tender plant called teve, about four feet 
high. There he deposited them until he was refreshed, when, by a second effort, he lifted them to 
the height of a tree called Kauariki, which is as large as the sycamore. By the third attempt he 
carried them to the summits of the mountains; and after a long interval of repose, and by a most 


prodigious effort, he elevated them to their present situation." For this, as a mighty benefactor of 
mankind, "this individual was deified; and up to the moment that Christianity was embraced, the 
deluded inhabitants worshipped him as the 'Elevator of the heavens.'" Now, what could more 
graphically describe the position of mankind soon after the flood, and the proceedings of Nimrod 
as Phoroneus, "The Emancipator," * than this Polynesian fable? 

* The bearing of this name, Phoroneus, "The Emancipator," will be seen in 
Chapter III, Section I, "Christmas," where it is shown that slaves had a temporary 
emancipation at his birthday. 

While the awful catastrophe by which God had showed His avenging justice on the sinners of the 
old world was yet fresh in the minds of men, and so long as Noah, and the upright among his 
descendants, sought with all earnestness to impress upon all under their control the lessons which 
that solemn event was so well fitted to teach, "heaven," that is, God, must have seemed very near 
to earth. To maintain the union between heaven and earth, and to keep it as close as possible, 
must have been the grand aim of all who loved God and the best interests of the human race. But 
this implied the restraining and discountenancing of all vice and all those "pleasures of sin," after 
which the natural mind, unrenewed and unsanctified, continually pants. This must have been 
secretly felt by every unholy mind as a state of insufferable bondage. "The carnal mind is enmity 
against God," is "not subject to His law," neither indeed is "able to be" so. It says to the 
Almighty, "Depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways." So long as the 
influence of the great father of the new world was in the ascendant, while his maxims were 
regarded, and a holy atmosphere surrounded the world, no wonder that those who were alienated 
from God and godliness, felt heaven and its influence and authority to be intolerably near, and 
that in such circumstances they "could not walk," but only "crawl, "--that is, that they had no 
freedom to "walk after the sight of their own eyes and the imaginations of their own hearts." 
From this bondage Nimrod emancipated them. By the apostacy he introduced, by the free life he 
developed among those who rallied around him, and by separating them from the holy influences 
that had previously less or more controlled them, he helped them to put God and the strict 
spirituality of His law at a distance, and thus he became the "Elevator of the heavens," making 
men feel and act as if heaven were afar off from earth, and as if either the God of heaven "could 
not see through the dark cloud," or did not regard with displeasure the breakers of His laws. Then 
all such would feel that they could breathe freely, and that now they could walk at liberty. For 
this, such men could not but regard Nimrod as a high benefactor. 

Now, who could have imagined that a tradition from Tahiti would have illuminated the story of 
Atlas? But yet, when Atlas, bearing the heavens on his shoulders, is brought into juxtaposition 
with the deified hero of the South Seas, who blessed the world by heaving up the 
superincumbent heavens that pressed so heavily upon it, who does not see that the one story 
bears a relation to the other? * 

* In the Polynesian story the heavens and earth are said to have been "bound 
together with cords," and the "severing" of these cords is said to have been 
effected by myriads of "dragon- flies," which, with their "wings," bore an 
important share in the great work. (WILLIAMS) Is there not here a reference to 
Nimrod's v 63 "mighties" or "winged ones"? The deified "mighty ones" were often 
represented as winged serpents. See WILKINSON, vol. iv. p. 232, where the god 
Agathodaemon is represented as a "winged asp." Among a rude people the 
memory of such a representation might very naturally be kept up in connection 


with the "dragon-fly"; and as all the mighty or winged ones of Nimrod's age, the 
real golden age of paganism, when "dead, became daemons" (HESIOD, Works 
and Days), they would of course all alike be symbolised in the same way. If any 
be stumbled at the thought of such a connection between the mythology of Tahiti 
and of Babel, let it not be overlooked that the name of the Tahitian god of war 
was Oro (WILLIAMS), while "Horus (or Orus)," as Wilkinson calls the son of 
Osiris, in Egypt, which unquestionably borrowed its system from Babylon, 
appeared in that very character. (WILKINSON) Then what could the severing of 
the "cords" that bound heaven and earth together be, but just the breaking of the 
bands of the covenant by which God bound the earth to Himself, when on 
smelling a sweet savour in Noah's sacrifice, He renewed His covenant with him as 
head of the human race. This covenant did not merely respect the promise to the 
earth securing it against another universal deluge, but contained in is bosom a 
promise of all spiritual blessings to those who adhere to it. The smelling of the 
sweet savour in Noah's sacrifice had respect to his faith in Christ. When, 
therefore, in consequence of smelling that sweet savour, "God blessed Noah and 
his sons" (Gen 9:1), that had reference not merely to temporal but to spiritual and 
eternal blessings. Every one, therefore, of the sons of Noah, who had Noah's faith, 
and who walked as Noah walked, was divinely assured of an interest in "the 
everlasting covenant, ordered in all things and sure." Blessed were those bands by 
which God bound the believing children of men to Himself- -by which heaven and 
earth were so closely joined together. Those, on the other hand, who joined in the 
apo stacy of Nimrod broke the covenant, and in casting off the authority of God, 
did in effect say, "Let us break His bands asunder, and cast His cords from us." 
To this very act of severing the covenant connection between earth and heaven 
there is very distinct allusion, though veiled, in the Babylonian history of Berosus. 
There Belus, that is Nimrod, after having dispelled the primeval darkness, is said 
to have separated heaven and earth from one another, and to have orderly 
arranged the world. (BEROSUS, in BUNSEN) These words were intended to 
represent Belus as the 'Former of the world." But then it is a new world that he 
forms; for there are creatures in existence before his Demiurgic power is exerted. 
The new world that Belus or Nimrod formed, was just the new order of things 
which he introduced when, setting at nought all Divine appointments, he rebelled 
against Heaven. The rebellion of the Giants is represented as peculiarly a 
rebellion against Heaven. To this ancient quarrel between the Babylonian 
potentates and Heaven, there is plainly an allusion in the words of Daniel to 
Nebuchadnezzar, when announcing that sovereign's humiliation and subsequent 
restoration, he says (Dan 4:26), "Thy kingdom shall be sure unto thee, when thou 
hast known that the HEAVENS do rule." 

Thus, then, it appears that Atlas, with the heavens resting on his broad shoulders, refers to no 
mere distinction in astronomical knowledge, however great, as some have supposed, but to a 
quite different thing, even to that great apostacy in which the Giants rebelled against Heaven, 
and in which apostacy Nimrod, "the mighty one," * as the acknowledged ringleader, occupied a 
pre-eminent place. ** 

* In the Greek Septuagint, translated in Egypt, the term "mighty" as applied in 
Genesis 10:8, to Nimrod, is rendered the ordinary name for a "Giant." 


** IVAN and KALLERY, in their account of Japan, show that a similar story to 
that of Atlas was known there, for they say that once a day the Emperor "sits on 
his throne upholding the world and the empire." Now something like this came to 
be added to the story of Atlas, for PAUSANIAS shows that Atlas also was 
represented as upholding both earth and heaven. 

According to the system which Nimrod was the grand instrument in introducing, men were led to 
believe that a real spiritual change of heart was unnecessary, and that so far as change was 
needful, they could be regenerated by mere external means. Looking at the subject in the light of 
the Bacchanalian orgies, which, as the reader has seen, commemorated the history of Nimrod, it 
is evident that he led mankind to seek their chief good in sensual enjoyment, and showed them 
how they might enjoy the pleasures of sin, without any fear of the wrath of a holy God. In his 
various expeditions he was always accompanied by troops of women; and by music and song, 
and games and revelries, and everything that could please the natural heart, he commended 
himself to the good graces of mankind. 

Sub-Section IV 
The Death of the Child 

How Nimrod died, Scripture is entirely silent. There was an ancient tradition that he came to a 
violent end. The circumstances of that end, however, as antiquity represents them, are clouded 
with fable. It is said that tempests of wind sent by God against the Tower of Babel overthrew it, 
and that Nimrod perished in its ruins. This could not be true, for we have sufficient evidence that 
the Tower of Babel stood long after Nimrod's day. Then, in regard to the death of Ninus, profane 
history speaks darkly and mysteriously, although one account tells of his having met with a 
violent death similar to that of Pentheus, Lycurgus, * and Orpheus, who were said to have been 
torn in pieces. ** 

* Lycurgus, who is commonly made the enemy of Bacchus, was, by the Thracians 
and Phrygians, identified with Bacchus, who it is well known, was torn in pieces. 

** LUDOVICUS VIVES, Commentary on Augustine. Ninus as referred to by 
Vives is called "King of India." The word "India" in classical writers, though not 
always, yet commonly means Ethiopia, or the land of Cush. Thus the Choaspes in 
the land of the eastern Cushites is called an "Indian River" (DIONYSIUS AFER. 
Periergesis); and the Nile is said by Virgil to come from the "coloured Indians" 
(Georg)--le., from the Cushites, or Ethiopians of Africa. Osiris also is by 
Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca), called "an Indian by extraction." There can be no 
doubt, then, that "Ninus, king of India," is the Cushite or Ethiopian Ninus. 

The identity of Nimrod, however, and the Egyptian Osiris, having been established, we have 
thereby light as to Nimrod's death. Osiris met with a violent death, and that violent death of 
Osiris was the central theme of the whole idolatry of Egypt. If Osiris was Nimrod, as we have 
seen, that violent death which the Egyptians so pathetically deplored in their annual festivals was 
just the death of Nimrod. The accounts in regard to the death of the god worshipped in the 
several mysteries of the different countries are all to the same effect. A statement of Plato seems 
to show, that in his day the Egyptian Osiris was regarded as identical with Tammuz; * and 
Tammuz is well known to have been the same as Adonis, the famous HUNTSMAN, for whose 
death Venus is fabled to have made such bitter lamentations. 


* See WILKINSON'S Egyptians. The statement of Plato amounts to this, that the 
famous Thoth was a counsellor of Thamus, king of Egypt. Now Thoth is 
universally known as the "counsellor" of Osiris. Hence it may be concluded that 
Thamus and Osiris are the same. 

As the women of Egypt wept for Osiris, as the Phoenician and Assyrian women wept for 
Tammuz, so in Greece and Rome the women wept for Bacchus, whose name, as we have seen, 
means "The bewailed," or "Lamented one." And now, in connection with the Bacchanal 
lamentations, the importance of the relation established between Nebros, "The spotted fawn," 
and Nebrod, "The mighty hunter," will appear. The Nebros, or "spotted fawn," was the symbol of 
Bacchus, as representing Nebrod or Nimrod himself. Now, on certain occasions, in the mystical 
celebrations, the Nebros, or "spotted fawn," was torn in pieces, expressly, as we learn from 
Photius, as a commemoration of what happened to Bacchus, * whom that fawn represented. 

* Photius, under the head "Nebridzion" quotes Demosthenes as saying that 
"spotted fawns (or nebroi) were torn in pieces for a certain mystic or mysterious 
reason"; and he himself tells us that "the tearing in pieces of the nebroi (or spotted 
fawns) was in imitation of the suffering in the case of Dionysus" or Bacchus. 
(PHOTIUS, Lexicon) 

The tearing in pieces of Nebros, "the spotted one," goes to confirm the conclusion, that the death 
of Bacchus, even as the death of Osiris, represented the death of Nebrod, whom, under the very 
name of "The Spotted one," the Babylonians worshipped. Though we do not find any account of 
Mysteries observed in Greece in memory of Orion, the giant and mighty hunter celebrated by 
Homer, under that name, yet he was represented symbolically as having died in a similar way to 
that in which Osiris died, and as having then been translated to heaven. * 

* See OVID'S Fasti. Ovid represents Orion as so puffed up with pride on account 
of his great strength, as vain- gloriously to boast that no creature on earth could 
cope with him, whereupon a scorpion appeared, "and," says the poet, "he was 
added to the stars." The name of a scorpion in Chaldee is Akrab; but Ak-rab, thus 
divided, signifies "THE GREAT OPPRESSOR," and this is the hidden meaning 
of the Scorpion as represented in the Zodiac. That sign typifies him who cut off 
the Babylonian god, and suppressed the system he set up. It was while the sun 
was in Scorpio that Osiris in Egypt "disappeared" (WILKINSON), and great 
lamentations were made for his disappearance. Another subject was mixed up 
with the death of the Egyptian god; but it is specially to be noticed that, as it was 
in consequence of a conflict with a scorpion that Orion was "added to the stars," 
so it was when the scorpion was in the ascendant that Osiris "disappeared." 

From Persian records we are expressly assured that it was Nimrod who was deified after his 
death by the name of Orion, and placed among the stars. Here, then, we have large and 
consenting evidence, all leading to one conclusion, that the death of Nimrod, the child 
worshipped in the arms of the goddess- mother of Babylon, was a death of violence. 

Now, when this mighty hero, in the midst of his career of glory, was suddenly cut off by a 
violent death, great seems to have been the shock that the catastrophe occasioned. When the 
news spread abroad, the devotees of pleasure felt as if the best benefactor of mankind were gone, 
and the gaiety of nations eclipsed. Loud was the wail that everywhere ascended to heaven among 
the apostates from the primeval faith for so dire a catastrophe. Then began those weepings for 


Tammuz, in the guilt of which the daughters of Israel allowed themselves to be implicated, and 
the existence of which can be traced not merely in the annals of classical antiquity, but in the 
literature of the world from Ultima Thule to Japan. 

Of the prevalence of such weepings in China, thus speaks the Rev. W. Gillespie: "The dragon- 
boat festival happens in midsummer, and is a season of great excitement. About 2000 years ago 
there lived a young Chinese Mandarin, Wat-yune, highly respected and beloved by the people. 
To the grief of all, he was suddenly drowned in the river. Many boats immediately rushed out in 
search of him, but his body was never found. Ever since that time, on the same day of the month, 
the dragon-boats go out in search of him." "It is something," adds the author, "like the bewailing 
of Adonis, or the weeping for Tammuz mentioned in Scripture." As the great god Buddh is 
generally represented in China as a Negro, that may serve to identify the beloved Mandarin 
whose loss is thus annually bewailed. The religious system of Japan largely coincides with that 
of China. In Iceland, and throughout Scandinavia, there were similar lamentations for the loss of 
the god Balder. Balder, through the treachery of the god Loki, the spirit of evil, according as had 
been written in the book of destiny, "was slain, although the empire of heaven depended on his 
life." His father Odin had "learned the terrible secret from the book of destiny, having conjured 
one of the Volar from her infernal abode. All the gods trembled at the knowledge of this event. 
Then Frigga [the wife of Odin] called on every object, animate and inanimate, to take an oath not 
to destroy or furnish arms against Balder. Fire, water, rocks, and vegetables were bound by this 
solemn obligation. One plant only, the mistletoe, was overlooked. Loki discovered the omission, 
and made that contemptible shrub the fatal weapon. Among the warlike pastimes of Valhalla [the 
assembly of the gods] one was to throw darts at the invulnerable deity, who felt a pleasure in 
presenting his charmed breast to their weapons. At a tournament of this kind, the evil genius 
putting a sprig of the mistletoe into the hands of the blind Hoder, and directing his aim, the 
dreaded prediction was accomplished by an unintentional fratricide. The spectators were struck 
with speechless wonder; and their misfortune was the greater, that no one, out of respect to the 
sacredness of the place, dared to avenge it. With tears of lamentation they carried the lifeless 
body to the shore, and laid it upon a ship, as a funeral pile, with that of Nanna his lovely bride, 
who had died of a broken heart. His horse and arms were burnt at the same time, as was 
customary at the obsequies of the ancient heroes of the north." Then Frigga, his mother, was 
overwhelmed with distress. "Inconsolable for the loss of her beautiful son," says Dr. Crichton, 
"she despatched Hermod (the swift) to the abode of Hela [the goddess of Hell, or the infernal 
regions], to offer a ransom for his release. The gloomy goddess promised that he should be 
restored, provided everything on earth were found to weep for him. Then were messengers sent 
over the whole world, to see that the order was obeyed, and the effect of the general sorrow was 
'as when there is a universal thaw.'" There are considerable variations from the original story in 
these two legends; but at bottom the essence of the stories is the same, indicating that they must 
have flowed from one fountain. 

Sub-Section V 
The Deification of the Child 

If there was one who was more deeply concerned in the tragic death of Nimrod than another, it 
was his wife Semiramis, who, from an originally humble position, had been raised to share with 
him the throne of Babylon. What, in this emergency shall she do? Shall she quietly forego the 
pomp and pride to which she has been raised! No. Though the death of her husband has given a 


rude shock to her power, yet her resolution and unbounded ambition were in nowise checked. On 
the contrary, her ambition took a still higher flight. In life her husband had been honoured as a 
hero; in death she will have him worshipped as a god, yea, as the woman's promised Seed, 
"Zero-ashta," * who was destined to bruise the serpent's head, and who, in doing so, was to have 
his own heel bruised. 

* Zero--in Chaldee, "the seed"--though we have seen reason to conclude that in 
Greek it sometimes appeared as Zeira, quite naturally passed also into Zoro, as 
may be seen from the change of Zerubbabel in the Greek Septuagint to Zoro- 
babel; and hence Zuro-ashta, "the seed of the woman" became Zoroaster, the well 
known name of the head of the fire- worshippers. Zoroaster's name is also found 
as Zeroastes (JOHANNES CLERICUS, De Chaldoeis). The reader who consults 
the able and very learned work of Dr. Wilson of Bombay, on the Parsi Religion, 
will find that there was a Zoroaster long before that Zoroaster who lived in the 
reign of Darius Hystaspes. In general history, the Zoroaster of Bactria is most 
frequently referred to; but the voice of antiquity is clear and distinct to the effect 
that the first and great Zoroaster was an Assyrian or Chaldean (SUIDAS), and that 
he was the founder of the idolatrous system of Babylon, and therefore Nimrod. It 
is equally clear also in stating that he perished by a violent death, even as was the 
case with Nimrod, Tammuz, or Bacchus. The identity of Bacchus and Zoroaster is 
still further proved by the epithet Pyrisporus, bestowed on Bacchus in the Orphic 
Hymns. When the primeval promise of Eden began to be forgotten, the meaning 
of the name Zero-ashta was lost to all who knew only the exoteric doctrine of 
Paganism; and as "ashta" signified "fire" in Chaldee, as well as "the woman," and 
the rites of Bacchus had much to do with fire-worship, "Zero-ashta" came to be 
rendered "the seed of fire"; and hence the epithet Pyrisporus, or Ignigena, "fire- 
born," as applied to Bacchus. From this misunderstanding of the meaning of the 
name Zero-ashta, or rather from its wilful perversion by the priests, who wished 
to establish one doctrine for the initiated, and another for the profane vulgar, came 
the whole story about the unborn infant Bacchus having been rescued from the 
flames that consumed his mother Semele, when Jupiter came in his glory to visit 
her. (Note to OVID'S Metam.) 

There was another name by which Zoroaster was known, and which is not a little 
instructive, and that is Zar-adas, "The only seed." (JOHANNES CLERICUS, De 
Chaldoeis) In WILSON'S Parsi Religion the name is given either Zoroadus, or 
Zarades. The ancient Pagans, while they recognised supremely one only God, 
knew also that there was one only seed, on whom the hopes of the world were 
founded. In almost all nations, not only was a great god known under the name of 
Zero or Zer, "the seed," and a great goddess under the name of Ashta or Isha, "the 
woman"; but the great god Zero is frequently characterised by some epithet which 
implies that he is "The only One." Now what can account for such names or 
epithets? Genesis 3:15 can account for them; nothing else can. The name Zar- 
ades, or Zoro-adus, also strikingly illustrates the saying of Paul: "He saith not, 
And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." 

It is worthy of notice, that the modern system of Parseeism, which dates from the 
reform of the old fire-worship in the time of Darius Hystaspes, having rejected the 


worship of the goddess- mother, cast out also from the name of their Zoroaster the 
name of the "woman"; and therefore in the Zend, the sacred language of the 
Parsees, the name of their great reformer is Zarathustra--i.e., "The Delivering 
Seed," the last member of the name coming from Thusht (the root being- - 
Chaldee--nthsh, which drops the initial n), "to loosen or set loose," and so to free. 
Thusht is the infinitive, and ra appended to it is, in Sanscrit, with which the Zend 
has much affinity, the well known sign of the doer of an action, just as er is in 
English. The Zend Zarathushtra, then, seems just the equivalent of Phoroneus, 
"The Emancipator." 

The patriarchs, and the ancient world in general, were perfectly acquainted with the grand 
primeval promise of Eden, and they knew right well that the bruising of the heel of the promised 
seed implied his death, and that the curse could be removed from the world only by the death of 
the grand Deliverer. If the promise about the bruising of the serpent's head, recorded in Genesis, 
as made to our first parents, was actually made, and if all mankind were descended from them, 
then it might be expected that some trace of this promise would be found in all nations. And such 
is the fact. There is hardly a people or kindred on earth in whose mythology it is not shadowed 
forth. The Greeks represented their great god Apollo as slaying the serpent Pytho, and Hercules 
as strangling serpents while yet in his cradle. In Egypt, in India, in Scandinavia, in Mexico, we 
find clear allusions to the same great truth. "The evil genius," says Wilkinson, "of the adversaries 
of the Egyptian god Horus is frequently figured under the form of a snake, whose head he is seen 
piercing with a spear. The same fable occurs in the religion of India, where the malignant serpent 
Calyia is slain by Vishnu, in his avatar of Crishna ( Fig. 23) ; and the Scandinavian deity Thor was 
said to have bruised the head of the great serpent with his mace." "The origin of this," he adds, 
"may be readily Iraced to the Bible." In reference to a similar belief among the Mexicans, we 
find Humboldt saying, that "The serpent crushed by the great spirit Teotl, when he takes the form 
of one of the subaltern deities, is the genius of evil- -a real Kakodaemon." Now, in almost all 
cases, when the subject is examined to the bottom, it turns out that the serpent destroying god is 
represented as enduring hardships and sufferings that end in his death. Thus the god Thor, while 
succeeding at last in destroying the great serpent, is represented as, in the very moment of 
victory, perishing from the venomous effluvia of his breath. The same would seem to be the way 
in which the Babylonians represented their great serpent-destroyer among the figures of their 
ancient sphere. His mysterious suffering is thus described by the Greek poet Aratus, whose 
language shows that when he wrote, the meaning of the representation had been generally lost, 
although, when viewed in this light of Scripture, it is surely deeply significant:- - 

"A human figure, 'whelmed with toil, appears; 
Yet still with name uncertain he remains; 
Nor known the labour that he thus sustains; 
But since upon his knees he seems to fall, 
Him ignorant mortals Engonasis call; 
And while sublime his awful hands are spread, 
Beneath him rolls the dragon's horrid head, 
And his right foot unmoved appears to rest, 
Fixed on the writhing monster's burnished crest." 


Fig. 38. 

An Egyptian goddess plerrfag the Sprpent's hend, and tht ImJtan 
Crifcima crushing the Seipent'i heftd.^ 

Fig. 23: An Egyptian Goddess, and Indian Crishna, crushing the Serpent's Head 

The Egyptian goddess if from WILKINSON, vol. vi. Plate 42; Crishna from 
COLEMAN's Indian Mythology, p. 34. 

The constellation thus represented is commonly known by the name of "The Kneeler," from this 
very description of the Greek poet; but it is plain that, as "Eugonasis" came from the 
Babylonians, it must be interpreted, not in a Greek, but in a Chaldee sense, and so interpreted, as 
the action of the figure itself implies, the title of the mysterious sufferer is just "The Serpent- 
crusher." Sometimes, however the actual crushing of the serpent was represented as a much more 
easy process; yet, even then, death was the ultimate result; and that death of the serpent-destroyer 
is so described as to leave no doubt whence the fable was borrowed. This is particularly the case 
with the Indian god Crishna, to whom Wilkinson alludes in the extract already given. In the 
legend that concerns him, the whole of the primeval promise in Eden is very strikingly 
embodied. First, he is represented in pictures and images with his foot on the great serpent's 
head, and then, after destroying it, he is fabled to have died in consequence of being shot by an 
arrow in the foot; and, as in the case of Tammuz, great lamentations are annually made for his 
death. Even in Greece, also, in the classic story of Paris and Achilles, we have a very plain 
allusion to that part of the primeval promise, which referred to the bruising of the conqueror's 
"heel." Achilles, the only son of a goddess, was invulnerable in all points except the heel, but 
there a wound was deadly. At that his adversary took aim, and death was the result. 

Now, if there be such evidence still, that even Pagans knew that it was by dying that the 
promised Messiah was to destroy death and him that has the power of death, that is the Devil, 
how much more vivid must have been the impression of mankind in general in regard to this 
vital truth in the early days of Semiramis, when they were so much nearer the fountain-head of 
all Divine tradition. When, therefore, the name Zoroaster, "the seed of the woman," was given to 
him who had perished in the midst of a prosperous career of false worship and apostacy, there 
can be no doubt of the meaning which that name was intended to convey. And the fact of the 
violent death of the hero, who, in the esteem of his partisans, had done so much to bless 
mankind, to make life happy, and to deliver them from the fear of the wrath to come, instead of 
being fatal to the bestowal of such a title upon him, favoured rather than otherwise the daring 


design. All that was needed to countenance the scheme on the part of those who wished an 
excuse for continued apostacy from the true God, was just to give out that, though the great 
patron of the apostacy had fallen a prey to the malice of men, he had freely offered himself for 
the good of mankind. Now, this was what was actually done. The Chaldean version of the story 
of the great Zoroaster is that he prayed to the supreme God of heaven to take away his life; that 
his prayer was heard, and that he expired, assuring his followers that, if they cherished due 
regard for his memory, the empire would never depart from the Babylonians. What Berosus, the 
Babylonian historian, says of the cutting off of the head of the great god Belus, is plainly to the 
same effect. Belus, says Berosus, commanded one of the gods to cut off his head, that from the 
blood thus shed by his own command and with his own consent, when mingled with the earth, 
new creatures might be formed, the first creation being represented as a sort of a failure. Thus the 
death of Belus, who was Nimrod, like that attributed to Zoroaster, was represented as entirely 
voluntary, and as submitted to for the benefit of the world. 

It seems to have been now only when the dead hero was to be deified, that the secret Mysteries 
were set up. The previous form of apostacy during the life of Nimrod appears to have been open 
and public. Now, it was evidently felt that publicity was out of the question. The death of the 
great ringleader of the apostacy was not the death of a warrior slain in battle, but an act of 
judicial rigour, solemnly inflicted. This is well established by the accounts of the deaths of both 
Tammuz and Osiris. The following is the account of Tammuz, given by the celebrated 
Maimonides, deeply read in all the learning of the Chaldeans: "When the false prophet named 
Thammuz preached to a certain king that he should worship the seven stars and the twelve signs 
of the Zodiac, that king ordered him to be put to a terrible death. On the night of his death all the 
images assembled from the ends of the earth into the temple of Babylon, to the great golden 
image of the Sun, which was suspended between heaven and earth. That image prostrated itself 
in the midst of the temple, and so did all the images around it, while it related to them all that had 
happened to Thammuz. The images wept and lamented all the night long, and then in the 
morning they flew away, each to his own temple again, to the ends of the earth. And hence arose 
the custom every year, on the first day of the month Thammuz, to mourn and to weep for 
Thammuz." There is here, of course, all the extravagance of idolatry, as found in the Chaldean 
sacred books that Maimonides had consulted; but there is no reason to doubt the fact stated either 
as to the manner or the cause of the death of Tammuz. In this Chaldean legend, it is stated that it 
was by the command of a "certain king" that this ringleader in apostacy was put to death. Who 
could this king be, who was so determinedly opposed to the worship of the host of heaven? From 
what is related of the Egyptian Hercules, we get very valuable light on this subject. It is admitted 
by Wilkinson that the most ancient Hercules, and truly primitive one, was he who was known in 
Egypt as having, "by the power of the gods" * (i.e., by the SPIRIT) fought against and overcome 
the Giants. 

* The name of the true God (Elohim) is plural. Therefore, "the power of the 
gods," and "of God," is expressed by the same term. 

Now, no doubt, the title and character of Hercules were afterwards given by the Pagans to him 
whom they worshipped as the grand deliverer or Messiah, just as the adversaries of the Pagan 
divinities came to be stigmatised as the "Giants" who rebelled against Heaven. But let the reader 
only reflect who were the real Giants that rebelled against Heaven. They were Nimrod and his 
party; for the "Giants" were just the "Mighty ones," of whom Nimrod was the leader. Who, then, 
was most likely to head the opposition to the apostacy from the primitive worship? If Shem was 


at that time alive, as beyond question he was, who so likely as he? In exact accordance with this 
deduction, we find that one of the names of the primitive Hercules in Egypt was "Sem." 

If "Sem," then, was the primitive Hercules, who overcame the Giants, and that not by mere 
physical force, but by "the power of God," or the influence of the Holy Spirit, that entirely agrees 
with his character; and more than that, it remarkably agrees with the Egyptian account of the 
death of Osiris. The Egyptians say, that the grand enemy of their god overcame him, not by open 
violence, but that, having entered into a conspiracy with seventy- two of the leading men of 
Egypt, he got him into his power, put him to death, and then cut his dead body into pieces, and 
sent the different parts to so many different cities throughout the country. The real meaning of 
this statement will appear, if we glance at the judicial institutions of Egypt. Seventy-two was just 
the number of the judges, both civil and sacred, who, according to Egyptian law, were required 
to determine what was to be the punishment of one guilty of so high an offence as that of Osiris, 
supposing this to have become a matter of judicial inquiry. In determining such a case, there 
were necessarily two tribunals concerned. First, there were the ordinary judges, who had power 
of life and death, and who amounted to thirty, then there was, over and above, a tribunal 
consisting of forty-two judges, who, if Osiris was condemned to die, had to determine whether 
his body should be buried or no, for, before burial, every one after death had to pass the ordeal of 
this tribunal. * 

* DIODORUS. The words of Diodorus, as printed in the ordinary editions, make 
the number of the judges simply "more than forty," without specifying how many 
more. In the Codex Coislianus, the number is stated to be 'two more than forty." 
The earthly judges, who tried the question of burial, are admitted both by 
WILKINSON and BUNSEN, to have corresponded in number to the judges of the 
infernal regions. Now, these judges, over and above their president, are proved 
from the monuments to have been just forty-two. The earthly judges at funerals, 
therefore, must equally have been forty-two. In reference to this number as 
applying equally to the judges of this world and the world of spirits, Bunsen, 
speaking of the judgment on a deceased person in the world unseen, uses these 
words in the passage above referred to: "Forty-two gods (the number composing 
the earthly tribunal of the dead) occupy the judgment- seat." Diodorus himself, 
whether he actually wrote "two more than forty," or simply "more than forty," 
gives reason to believe that forty- two was the number he had present to his mind; 
for he says, that "the whole of the fable of the shades below," as brought by 
Orpheus from Egypt, was "copied from the ceremonies of the Egyptian funerals," 
which he had witnessed at the judgment before the burial of the dead. If, 
therefore, there were just forty-two judges in "the shades below," that even, on the 
showing of Diodorus, whatever reading of his words be preferred, proves that the 
number of the judges in the earthly judgment must have been the same. 

As burial was refused him, both tribunals would necessarily be concerned; and thus there would 
be exactly seventy-two persons, under Typho the president, to condemn Osiris to die and to be 
cut in pieces. What, then, does the statement account to, in regard to the conspiracy, but just to 
this, that the great opponent of the idolatrous system which Osiris introduced, had so convinced 
these judges of the enormity of the offence which he had committed, that they gave up the 
offender to an awful death, and to ignominy after it, as a terror to any who might afterwards tread 
in his steps. The cutting of the dead body in pieces, and sending the dismembered parts among 


the different cities, is paralleled, and its object explained, by what we read in the Bible of the 
cutting of the dead body of the Levite's concubine in pieces (Judges 19:29), and sending one of 
the parts to each of the twelve tribes of Israel; and the similar step taken by Saul, when he hewed 
the two yoke of oxen asunder, and sent them throughout all the coasts of his kingdom (1 Sam 
11:7). It is admitted by commentators that both the Levite and Saul acted on a patriarchal 
custom, according to which summary vengeance would be dealt to those who failed to come to 
the gathering that in this solemn way was summoned. This was declared in so many words by 
Saul, when the parts of the slaughtered oxen were sent among the tribes: "Whosoever cometh not 
forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen." In like manner, when the 
dismembered parts of Osiris were sent among the cities by the seventy-two "conspirators "--in 
other words, by the supreme judges of Egypt, it was equivalent to a solemn declaration in their 
name, that "whosoever should do as Osiris had done, so should it be done to him; so should he 
also be cut in pieces." 

When irreligion and apostacy again arose into the ascendant, this act, into which the constituted 
authorities who had to do with the ringleader of the apostates were led, for the putting down of 
the combined system of irreligion and despotism set up by Osiris or Nimrod, was naturally the 
object of intense abhorrence to all his sympathisers; and for his share in it the chief actor was 
stigmatised as Typho, or "The Evil One." * 

* Wilkinson admits that different individuals at different times bore this hated 
name in Egypt. One of the most noted names by which Typho, or the Evil One, 
was called, was Seth (EPIPHANIUS, Adv. Hoeres). Now Seth and Shem are 
synonymous, both alike signifying "The appointed one." As Shem was a younger 
son of Noah, being "the brother of Japhet the elder" (Gen 10:21), and as the pre- 
eminence was divinely destined to him, the name Shem, "the appointed one," had 
doubtless been given him by Divine direction, either at his birth or afterwards, to 
mark him out as Seth had been previously marked out as the "child of promise." 
Shem, however, seems to have been known in Egypt as Typho, not only under the 
name of Seth, but under his own name; for Wilkinson tells us that Typho was 
characterised by a name that signified "to destroy and render desert." {Egyptians) 
Now the name of Shem also in one of its meanings signifies "to desolate" or lay 
waste. So Shem, the appointed one, was by his enemies made Shem, the 
Desolator or Destroyer- -i.e., the Devil. 

The influence that this abhorred Typho wielded over the minds of the so-called "conspirators," 
considering the physical force with which Nimrod was upheld, must have been wonderful, and 
goes to show, that though his deed in regard to Osiris is veiled, and himself branded by a hateful 
name, he was indeed none other than that primitive Hercules who overcame the Giants by "the 
power of God," by the persuasive might of his Holy Spirit. 

In connection with this character of Shem, the myth that makes Adonis, who is identified with 
Osiris, perish by the tusks of a wild boar, is easily unravelled. * The tusk of a wild boar was a 
symbol. In Scripture, a tusk is called "a horn"; among many of the Classic Greeks it was 
regarded in the very same light. ** 

* In India, a demon with a "boar's face" is said to have gained such power through 
his devotion, that he oppressed the 'devotees" or worshippers of the gods, who 


had to hide themselves. (MOOR'S Pantheon) Even in Japan there seems to be a 
similar myth. 

** Pausanian admits that some in his day regarded tusks as teeth; but he argues 
strongly, and, I think, conclusively, for their being considered as "horns." 

When once it is known that a tusk is regarded as a "horn" according to the symbolism of idolatry, 
the meaning of the boar's tusks, by which Adonis perished, is not far to seek. The bull's horns 
that Nimrod wore were the symbol of physical power. The boar's tusks were the symbol of 
spiritual power. As a "horn" means power, so a tusk, that is, a horn in the mouth, means "power 
in the mouth"; in other words, the power of persuasion; the very power with which "Sem," the 
primitive Hercules, was so signally endowed. Even from the ancient traditions of the Gael, we 
get an item of evidence that at once illustrates this idea of power in the mouth, and connects it 
with that great son of Noah, on whom the blessing of the Highest, as recorded in Scripture, did 
specially rest. The Celtic Hercules was called Hercules Ogmius, which, in Chaldee, is "Hercules 
the Lamenter." * 

* The Celtic scholars derive the name Ogmius from the Celtic word Ogum, which 
is said to denote "the secret of writing"; but Ogum is much more likely to be 
derived from the name of the god, than the name of the god to be derived from it. 

No name could be more appropriate, none more descriptive of the history of Shem, than this. 
Except our first parent, Adam, there was, perhaps, never a mere man that saw so much grief as 
he. Not only did he see a vast apostacy, which, with his righteous feelings, and witness as he had 
been of the awful catastrophe of the flood, must have deeply grieved him; but he lived to bury 
SEVEN GENERATIONS of his descendants. He lived 502 years after the flood, and as the lives 
of men were rapidly shortened after that event, no less than SEVEN generations of his lineal 
descendants died before him (Gen 11:10-32). How appropriate a name Ogmius, "The Lamenter 
or Mourner," for one who had such a history! Now, how is this "Mourning" Hercules represented 
as putting down enormities and redressing wrongs? Not by his club, like the Hercules of the 
Greeks, but by the force of persuasion. Multitudes were represented as following him, drawn by 
fine chains of gold and amber inserted into their ears, and which chains proceeded from his 
mouth. * 

* Sir W. BETHAM'S Gael and Cymbri. In connection with this Ogmius, one of 
the names of "Sem," the great Egyptian Hercules who overcame the Giants, is 
worthy of notice. That name is Chon. In the Etymologicum Magnum, apud 
BRYANT, we thus read: "They say that in the Egyptian dialect Hercules is called 
Chon." Compare this with WILKINSON, where Chon is called "Sem." Now 
Khon signifies "to lament" in Chaldee, and as Shem was Khon--i.e., "Priest" of 
the Most High God, his character and peculiar circumstances as Khon "the 
lamenter" would form an additional reason why he should be distinguished by 
that name by which the Egyptian Hercules was known. And it is not to be 
overlooked, that on the part of those who seek to turn sinners from the error of 
their ways, there is an eloquence in tears that is very impressive. The tears of 
Whitefield formed one great part of his power; and, in like manner, the tears of 
Khon, "the lamenting" Hercules, would aid him mightily in overcoming the 


There is a great difference between the two symbols--the tusks of a boar and the golden chains 
issuing from the mouth, that draw willing crowds by the ears; but both very beautifully illustrate 
the same idea- -the might of that persuasive power that enabled Shem for a time to withstand the 
tide of evil that came rapidly rushing in upon the world. 

Now when Shem had so powerfully wrought upon the minds of men as to induce them to make a 
terrible example of the great Apostate, and when that Apostate's dismembered limbs were sent to 
the chief cities, where no doubt his system had been established, it will be readily perceived that, 
in these circumstances, if idolatry was to continue- -if, above all, it was to take a step in advance, 
it was indispensable that it should operate in secret. The terror of an execution, inflicted on one 
so mighty as Nimrod, made it needful that, for some time to come at least, the extreme of caution 
should be used. In these circumstances, then, began, there can hardly be a doubt, that system of 
"Mystery," which, having Babylon for its centre, has spread over the world. In these Mysteries, 
under the seal of secrecy and the sanction of an oath, and by means of all the fertile resources of 
magic, men were gradually led back to all the idolatry that had been publicly suppressed, while 
new features were added to that idolatry that made it still more blasphemous than before. That 
magic and idolatry were twin sisters, and came into the world together, we have abundant 
evidence. "He" (Zoroaster), says Justin the historian, "was said to be the first that invented magic 
arts, and that most diligently studied the motions of the heavenly bodies." The Zoroaster spoken 
of by Justin is the Bactrian Zoroaster; but this is generally admitted to be a mistake. Stanley, in 
his History of Oriental Philosophy, concludes that this mistake had arisen from similarity of 
name, and that from this cause that had been attributed to the Bactrian Zoroaster which properly 
belonged to the Chaldean, "since it cannot be imagined that the Bactrian was the inventor of 
those arts in which the Chaldean, who lived contemporary with him, was so much skilled." 
Epiphanius had evidently come to the same substantial conclusion before him. He maintains, 
from the evidence open to him in his day, that it was 'Nimrod, that established the sciences of 
magic and astronomy, the invention of which was subsequently attributed to (the Bactrian) 
Zoroaster." As we have seen that Nimrod and the Chaldean Zoroaster are the same, the 
conclusions of the ancient and the modern inquirers into Chaldean antiquity entirely harmonise. 
Now the secret system of the Mysteries gave vast facilities for imposing on the senses of the 
initiated by means of the various tricks and artifices of magic. Notwithstanding all the care and 
precautions of those who conducted these initiations, enough has transpired to give us a very 
clear insight into their real character. Everything was so contrived as to wind up the minds of the 
novices to the highest pitch of excitement, that, after having surrendered themselves implicitly to 
the priests, they might be prepared to receive anything. After the candidates for initiation had 
passed through the confessional, and sworn the required oaths, "strange and amazing objects," 
says Wilkinson, "presented themselves. Sometimes the place they were in seemed to shake 
around them; sometimes it appeared bright and resplendent with light and radiant fire, and then 
again covered with black darkness, sometimes thunder and lightning, sometimes frightful noises 
and bellowings, sometimes terrible apparitions astonished the trembling spectators." Then, at 
last, the great god, the central object of their worship, Osiris, Tammuz, Nimrod or Adonis, was 
revealed to them in the way most fitted to soothe their feelings and engage their blind affections. 
An account of such a manifestation is thus given by an ancient Pagan, cautiously indeed, but yet 
in such a way as shows the nature of the magic secret by which such an apparent miracle was 
accomplished: "In a manifestation which one must not reveal... there is seen on a wall of the 
temple a mass of light, which appears at first at a very great distance. It is transformed, while 
unfolding itself, into a visage evidently divine and supernatural, of an aspect severe, but with a 


touch of sweetness. Following the teachings of a mysterious religion, the Alexandrians honour it 
as Osiris or Adonis." From this statement, there can hardly be a doubt that the magical art here 
employed was none other than that now made use of in the modern phantasmagoria. Such or 
similar means were used in the very earliest periods for presenting to the view of the living, in 
the secret Mysteries, those who were dead. We have statements in ancient history referring to the 
very time of Semiramis, which imply that magic rites were practised for this very purpose; * and 
as the magic lantern, or something akin to it, was manifestly used in later times for such an end, 
it is reasonable to conclude that the same means, or similar, were employed in the most ancient 
times, when the same effects were produced. 

* One of the statements to which I refer is contained in the following words of 
Moses of Chorene in his Armenian History, referring to the answer made by 
Semiramis to the friends of Araeus, who had been slain in battle by her: "I have 
given commands, says Semiramis, to my gods to lick the wounds of Araeus, and 
to raise him from the dead. The gods, says she, have licked Araeus, and recalled 
him to life." If Semiramis had really done what she said she had done, it would 
have been a miracle. The effects of magic were sham miracles; and Justin and 
Epiphanius show that sham miracles came in at the very birth of idolatry. Now, 
unless the sham miracle of raising the dead by magical arts had already been 
known to be practised in the days of Semiramis, it is not likely that she would 
have given such an answer to those whom she wished to propitiate; for, on the one 
hand, how could she ever have thought of such an answer, and on the other, how 
could she expect that it would have the intended effect, if there was no current 
belief in the practice of necromancy? We find that in Egypt, about the same age, 
such magic arts must have been practised, if Manetho is to be believed. "Manetho 
says," according to Josephus, "that he [the elder Horus, evidently spoken of as a 
human and mortal king] was admitted to the sight of the gods, and that 
Amenophis desired the same privilege." This pretended admission to the right of 
the gods evidently implied the use of the magic art referred to in the text. 

Now, in the hands of crafty, designing men, this was a powerful means of imposing upon those 
who were willing to be imposed upon, who were averse to the holy spiritual religion of the living 
God, and who still hankered after the system that was put down. It was easy for those who 
controlled the Mysteries, having discovered secrets that were then unknown to the mass of 
mankind, and which they carefully preserved in their own exclusive keeping, to give them what 
might seem ocular demonstration, that Tammuz, who had been slain, and for whom such 
lamentations had been made, was still alive, and encompassed with divine and heavenly glory. 
From the lips of one so gloriously revealed, or what was practically the same, from the lips of 
some unseen priest, speaking in his name from behind the scenes, what could be too wonderful 
or incredible to be believed? Thus the whole system of the secret Mysteries of Babylon was 
intended to glorify a dead man; and when once the worship of one dead man was established, the 
worship of many more was sure to follow. This casts light upon the language of the 106th Psalm, 
where the Lord, upbraiding Israel for their apostacy, says: "They joined themselves to Baalpeor, 
and ate the sacrifices of the dead." Thus, too, the way was paved for bringing in all the 
abominations and crimes of which the Mysteries became the scenes; for, to those who liked not 
to retain God in their knowledge, who preferred some visible object of worship, suited to the 
sensuous feelings of their carnal minds, nothing could seem a more cogent reason for faith or 


practice than to hear with their own ears a command given forth amid so glorious a manifestation 
apparently by the very divinity they adored. 

The scheme, thus skilfully formed, took effect. Semiramis gained glory from her dead and 
deified husband; and in course of time both of them, under the names of Rhea and Nin, or 
"Goddess-Mother and Son," were worshipped with an enthusiasm that was incredible, and their 
images were everywhere set up and adored. * 

* It would seem that no public idolatry was ventured upon till the reign of the 
grandson of Semiramis, Arioch or Arius. (Cedreni Compendium) 

Wherever the Negro aspect of Nimrod was found an obstacle to his worship, this was very easily 
obviated. According to the Chaldean doctrine of the transmigration of souls, all that was needful 
was just to teach that Ninus had reappeared in the person of a posthumous son, of a fair 
complexion, supernaturally borne by his widowed wife after the father had gone to glory. As the 
licentious and dissolute life of Semiramis gave her many children, for whom no ostensible father 
on earth would be alleged, a plea like this would at once sanctify sin, and enable her to meet the 
feelings of those who were disaffected to the true worship of Jehovah, and yet might have not 
fancy to bow down before a Negro divinity. From the light reflected on Babylon by Egypt, as 
well as from the form of the extant images of the Babylonian child in the arms of the goddess- 
mother, we have every reason to believe that this was actually done. In Egypt the, fair Horus, the 
son of the black Osiris, who was the favourite object of worship, in the arms of the goddess Isis, 
was said to have been miraculously born in consequence of a connection, on the part of that 
goddess, with Osiris after his death, and, in point of fact, to have been a new incarnation of that 
god, to avenge his death on his murderers. It is wonderful to find in what widely- severed 
countries, and amongst what millions of the human race at this day, who never saw a Negro, a 
Negro god is worshipped. But yet, as we shall afterwards see, among the civilised nations of 
antiquity, Nimrod almost everywhere fell into disrepute, and was deposed from his original pre- 
eminence, expressly ob deformitatem, "on account of his ugliness." Even in Babylon itself, the 
posthumous child, as identified with his father, and inheriting all his father's glory, yet 
possessing more of his mother's complexion, came to be the favourite type of the Madonna's 
divine son. 

This son, thus worshipped in his mother's arms, was looked upon as invested with all the 
attributes, and called by almost all the names of the promised Messiah. As Christ, in the Hebrew 
of the Old Testament, was called Adonai, The Lord, so Tammuz was called Adon or Adonis. 
Under the name of Mithras, he was worshipped as the "Mediator." As Mediator and head of the 
covenant of grace, he was styled Baal-berith, Lord of the Covenant (Fig. 24 ) - (Judges 8:33). In 
this character he is represented in Persian monuments as seated on the rainbow, the well known 
symbol of the covenant. In India, under the name of Vishnu, the Preserver or Saviour of men, 
though a god, he was worshipped as the great "Victim- Man," who before the worlds were, 
because there was nothing else to offer, offered himself as a sacrifice. The Hindoo sacred 
writings teach that this mysterious offering before all creation is the foundation of all the 
sacrifices that have ever been offered since. * 

* In the exercise of his office as the Remedial god, Vishnu is said to "extract the 
thorns of the three worlds." (MOOR'S Pantheon) "Thorns" were a symbol of the 
curse— Genesis 3:18. 


Wg. !i- 

Fig. 24: Baal-Berith, Lord of the Covenant 

THEVENOT, Voyages, Partie ii., chap. vii. p. 514 

Do any marvel at such a statement being found in the sacred books of a Pagan mythology? Why 
should they? Since sin entered the world there has been only one way of salvation, and that 
through the blood of the everlasting covenant- -a way that all mankind once knew, from the days 
of righteous Abel downwards. When Abel, "by faith," offered unto God his more excellent 
sacrifice than that of Cain, it was his faith "in the blood of the Lamb slain," in the purpose of 
God "from the foundation of the world," and in due time to be actually offered up on Calvary, 
that gave all the "excellence" to his offering. If Abel knew of "the blood of the Lamb," why 
should Hindoos not have known of it? One little word shows that even in Greece the virtue of 
"the blood of God" had once been known, though that virtue, as exhibited in its poets, was utterly 
obscured and degraded. That word is Ichor. Every reader of the bards of classic Greece knows 
that Ichor is the term peculiarly appropriated to the blood of a divinity. Thus Homer refers to it: 

"From the clear vein the immortal Ichor flowed, 
Such stream as issues from a wounded god, 

Pure emanation, uncorrupted flood, 
Unlike our gross, diseased terrestrial blood." 

Now, what is the proper meaning of the term Ichor? In Greek it has no etymological meaning 
whatever; but, in Chaldee, Ichor signifies "The precious thing." Such a name, applied to the 
blood of a divinity, could have only one origin. It bears its evidence on the very face of it, as 
coming from that grand patriarchal tradition, that led Abel to look forward to the "precious 
blood" of Christ, the most "precious" gift that love Divine could give to a guilty world, and 
which, while the blood of the only genuine "Victim- Man," is at the same time, in deed and in 
truth, "The blood of God" (Acts 20:28). Even in Greece itself, though the doctrine was utterly 
perverted, it was not entirely lost. It was mingled with falsehood and fable, it was hid from the 
multitude; but yet, in the secret mystic system it necessarily occupied an important place. As 
Servius tells us that the grand purpose of the Bacchic orgies "was the purification of souls," and 
as in these orgies there was regularly the tearing asunder and the shedding of the blood of an 
animal, in memory of the shedding of the life's blood of the great divinity commemorated in 
them, could this symbolical shedding of the blood of that divinity have no bearing on the 
"purification" from sin, these mystic rites were intended to effect? We have seen that the 
sufferings of the Babylonian Zoroaster and Belus were expressly represented as voluntary, and as 


submitted to for the benefit of the world, and that in connection with crushing the great serpent's 
head, which implied the removal of sin and the curse. If the Grecian Bacchus was just another 
form of the Babylonian divinity, then his sufferings and blood- shedding must have been 
represented as having been undergone for the same purpose--viz., for the "purification of souls." 
From this point of view, let the well known name of Bacchus in Greece be looked at. The name 
was Dionysus or Dionusos. What is the meaning of that name? Hitherto it has defied all 
interpretation. But deal with it as belonging to the language of that land from which the god 
himself originally came, and the meaning is very plain. D'ion-nuso-s signifies "THE SIN- 
BEARER," * a name entirely appropriate to the character of him whose sufferings were 
represented as so mysterious, and who was looked up to as the great "purifier of souls." 

* The expression used in Exodus 28:38, for "bearing iniquity" or in a vicarious 
manner is "nsha eon" (the first letter eon being ayn). A synonym for eon, 
"iniquity," is aon (the first letter being aleph). In Chaldee the first letter a 
becomes i, and therefore aon, "iniquity," is ion. Then nsha "to bear," in the 
participle active is "nusha." As the Greeks had no sh, that became nusa. De, or 
Da, is the demonstrative pronoun signifying "That" or "The great." And thus 
"D'ion-nusa" is exactly "The great sin-bearer." That the classic Pagans had the 
very idea of the imputation of sin, and of vicarious suffering, is proved by what 
Ovid says in regard to Olenos. Olenos is said to have taken upon him and 
willingly to have borne the blame of guilt of which he was innocent. Under the 
load of this imputed guilt, voluntarily taken upon himself, Olenos is represented 
as having suffered such horror as to have perished, being petrified or turned into 
stone. As the stone into which Olenos was changed was erected on the holy 
mountain of Ida, that shows that Olenos mist have been regarded as a sacred 
person. The real character of Olenos, as the "sin-bearer," can be very fully 
established. 6 

Olenos, the Sin-Bearer 

In different portions of this work evidence has been brought to show that Saturn, "the father of gods and men," was 
in one aspect just our first parent Adam. Now, of Saturn it is said that he devoured all his children. * 

* Sometimes he is said to have devoured only his male children; but see SMITH'S (Larger) Classical Dictionary, "Hera," 
where it will be found that the female as well as the male were devoured. 

In the exoteric story, among those who knew not the actual fact referred to, this naturally appeared in the myth, in 
the shape in which we commonly find it— viz., that he devoured them all as soon as they were born. But that which 
was really couched under the statement, in regard to his devouring his children, was just the Scriptural fact of the 
Fall--viz., that he destroyed them by eating-- -not by eating them, but by eating the forbidden fruit. When this was the 
sad and dismal state of matters, the Pagan story goes on to say that the destruction of the children of the father of 
gods and men was arrested by means of his wife, Rhea. Rhea, as we have already seen, had really as much to do 
with the devouring of Saturn's children, as Saturn himself; but, in the progress of idolatry and apostacy, Rhea, or 
Eve, came to get glory at Saturn's expense. Saturn, or Adam, was represented as a morose divinity; Rhea, or Eve, 
exceedingly benignant; and, in her benignity, she presented to her husband a stone bound in swaddling bands, which 
he greedily devoured, and henceforth the children of the cannibal father were safe. The stone bound in swaddling 
bands is, in the sacred language, "Ebn Hatul"; but Ebn-Hat-tul * also signifies "A sin-bearing son." 

* Hata, "sin," is found also in Chaldee, Hat. Tul is from Ntl, "to support." If the reader will look at Horus with his swathes 
(BRYANT); Diana with the bandages round her legs; the symbolic bull of the Persian swathed in like manner, and even the 
shapeless log of the Tahitians, used as a god and bound about with ropes (WILLIAMS); he will see, I think, that there must 
be some important mystery in this swathing. 


This does not necessarily mean that Eve, or the mother of mankind, herself actually brought forth the promised seed 
(although there are many myths also to that effect), but that, having received the glad tidings herself, and embraced 
it, she presented it to her husband, who received it by faith from her, and that this laid the foundation of his own 
salvation and that of his posterity. The devouring on the part of Saturn of the swaddled stone is just the symbolical 
expression of the eagerness with which Adam by faith received the good news of the woman's seed; for the act of 
faith, both in the Old Testament and in the New, is symbolised by eating. Thus Jeremiah says, "Thy words were 
found of me, and I did eat them, and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of my heart" (Jer 15:16). This also 
is strongly shown by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who, while setting before the Jews the indispensable necessity 
of eating His flesh, and feeding on Him, did at the same time say: "It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth 
nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" (John 6:63). That Adam eagerly received 
the good news about the promised seed, and treasured it up in his heart as the life of his soul, is evident from the 
name which he gave to his wife immediately after hearing it: "And Adam called his wife's name Eve, because she 
was the mother of all living ones" (Gen 3:20). 

The story of the swaddled stone does not end with the swallowing of it, and the arresting of the ruin of the children 
of Saturn. This swaddled stone was said to be "preserved near the temple of Delphi, where care was taken to anoint 
it daily with oil, and to cover it with wool" (MAURICE'S Indian Antiquities). If this stone symbolised the "sin- 
bearing son," it of course symbolised also the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world, in whose 
symbolic covering our first parents were invested when God clothed them in the coats of skins. Therefore, though 
represented to the eye as a stone, he must have the appropriate covering of wool. When represented as a branch, the 
branch of God, the branch also was wrapped in wool (POTTER, Religion of Greece). The daily anointing with oil is 
very significant. If the stone represented the "sin -bearing son," what could the anointing of that "sin -bearing son" 
daily with oil mean, but just to point him out as the "Lord's Anointed," or the "Messiah," whom the idolatrous 
worshipped in opposition to the true Messiah yet to be revealed? 

One of the names by which this swaddled and anointed stone was called is very strikingly confirmatory of the above 
conclusion. That name is Baitulos. This we find from Priscian, who, speaking of "that stone which Saturn is said to 
have devoured for Jupiter," adds, whom the Greeks called "Baitulos." Now, "B'hai-tuloh" signifies the "Life- 
restoring child." * 

* From Tli, Tleh, or Tloh, "Infans puer" (CLAVIS STOCKII, Chald.), and Hia, or Haya, "to live, to restore life." 
(GESENIUS) From Hia, "to live," with digamma prefixed, comes the Greek "life." That Hia, when adopted into Greek, 
was also pronounced Haya, we have evidence in he noun Hiim, "life," pronounced Hayyim, which in Greek is represented 
by "blood." The Mosaic principle, that "the blood was the life," is thus proved to have been known by others besides the 
Jews. Now Haya, "to live or restore life," with the digamma prefixed, becomes B'haya: and so in Egypt, we find that Bai 
signified "soul," or "spirit" (BUNSEN), which is the living principle. B'haitulos, then, is the "Life-restoring child." P'haya-n 
is the same god. 

The father of gods and men had destroyed his children by eating; but the reception of "the swaddled stone" is said to 
have "restored them to life" (HESIOD, Theogon.). Hence the name Baitulos; and this meaning of the name is 
entirely in accordance with what is said in Sanchuniathon about the Baithulia made by the Phoenician god Ouranos: 
"It was the god Ouranos who devised Baithulia, contriving stones that moved as having life." If the stone Baitulos 
represented the "life -restoring child," it was natural that that stone should be made, if possible, to appear as having 
"life" in itself. 

Now, there is a great analogy between this swaddled stone that represented the "sin -bearing son," and that Olenos 
mentioned by Ovid, who took on him guilt not his own, and in consequence was changed into a stone. We have seen 
already that Olenos, when changed into a stone, was set up in Phrygia on the holy mountain of Ida. We have reason 
to believe that the stone which was fabled to have done so much for the children of Saturn, and was set up near the 
temple of Delphi, was just a representation of this same Olenos. We find that Olen was the first prophet at Delphi, 
who founded the first temple there (PAUSA Phocica). As the prophets and priests generally bore the names of the 
gods whom they represented (Hesychius expressly tells us that the priest who represented the great god under the 
name of the branch in the mysteries was himself called by the name of Bacchus), this indicates one of the ancient 
names of the god of Delphi. If, then, there was a sacred stone on Mount Ida called the stone of Olenos, and a sacred 
stone in the precincts of the temple of Delphi, which Olen founded, can there be a doubt that the sacred stone of 
Delphi represented the same as was represented by the sacred stone of Ida? The swaddled stone set up at Delphi is 
expressly called by Priscian, in the place already cited, "a god." This god, then, that in symbol was divinely 
anointed, and was celebrated as having restored to life the children of Saturn, father of gods and men, as identified 


Now, this Babylonian god, known in Greece as "The sin-bearer," and in India as the "Victim- 
Man," among the Buddhists of the East, the original elements of whose system are clearly 
Babylonian, was commonly addressed as the "Saviour of the world." It has been all along well 
enough known that the Greeks occasionally worshipped the supreme god under the title of "Zeus 
the Saviour"; but this title was thought to have reference only to deliverance in battle, or some 
suck- like temporal deliverance. But when it is known that "Zeus the Saviour" was only a title of 
Dionysus, the "sin-bearing Bacchus," his character, as "The Saviour," appears in quite a different 
light. In Egypt, the Chaldean god was held up as the great object of love and adoration, as the 
god through whom "goodness and truth were revealed to mankind." He was regarded as the 
predestined heir of all things; and, on the day of his birth, it was believed that a voice was heard 
to proclaim, "The Lord of all the earth is born." In this character he was styled "King of kings, 
and Lord of lords," it being as a professed representative of this hero-god that the celebrated 

with the Idaean Olenos, is proved to have been regarded as occupying the very place of the Messiah, the great Sin- 
bearer, who came to bear the sins of men, and took their place and suffered in their room and stead; for Olenos, as 
we have seen, voluntarily took on him guilt of which he was personally free. 

Fig. 60: Popish Image of "God," with bandaged Globe of Paganism 
From DIDRON's Iconography, vol. i. p. 301 

While thus we have seen how much of the patriarchal faith was hid under the mystical symbols of Paganism, there is 
yet a circumstance to be noted in regard to the swaddled stone, that shows how the Mystery of Iniquity in Rome has 
contrived to import this swaddled stone of Paganism into what is called Christian symbolism. The Baitulos, or 
swaddled stone, was a round or globular stone. This globular stone is frequently represented swathed and bound, 
sometimes with more, sometimes with fewer bandages. In BRYANT, where the goddess Cybele is represented as 
"Spes Divina," or Divine hope, we see the foundation of this divine hope held out to the world in the representation 
of the swaddled stone at her right hand, bound with four different swathes. In DAVID'S Antiquites Etrusques, we 
find a goddess represented with Pandora's box, the source of all ill, in her extended hand, and the swaddled globe 
depending from it; and in this case that globe has only two bandages, the one crossing the other. And what is this 
bandage globe of Paganism but just the counterpart of that globe, with a band around it, and the my stic Tau, or 
cross, on the top of it, that is called "the type of dominion," and is frequently represented, as in the accompanying 
woodcut ( Fig. 60) , in the hands of the profane representations of God the Father. The reader does not now need to 
be told that the cross is the chosen sign and mark of that very God whom the swaddled stone represented; and that 
when that God was born, it was said, "The Lord of all the earth is born" (WILKINSON). As the god symbolised by 
the swaddled stone not only restored the children of Saturn to life, but restored the lordship of the earth to Saturn 
himself, which by transgression he had lost, it is not to be wondered at that it is said of "these consecrated stones," 
that while "some were dedicated to Jupiter, and others to the sun," "they were considered in a more particular 
manner sacred to Saturn," the Father of the gods (MAURICE), and that Rome, in consequence, has put the round 
stone into the hand of the image, bearing the profaned name of God the Father attached to it, and that from his 
source the bandaged globe, surmounted with the mark of Tammuz, has become the symbol of dominion throughout 
all Papal Europe. 


Sesostris caused this very title to be added to his name on the monuments which he erected to 
perpetuate the fame of his victories. Not only was he honoured as the great "World King," he 
was regarded as Lord of the invisible world, and "Judge of the dead"; and it was taught that, in 
the world of spirits, all must appear before his dread tribunal, to have their destiny assigned 
them. As the true Messiah was prophesied of under the title of the "Man whose name was the 
branch," he was celebrated not only as the "Branch of Cush," but as the "Branch of God," 
graciously given to the earth for healing all the ills that flesh is heir to. * He was worshipped in 
Babylon under the name of El-Bar, or "God the Son." Under this very name he is introduced by 
Berosus, the Chaldean historian, as the second in the list of Babylonian sovereigns. ** 

* This is the esoteric meaning of Virgil's "Golden Branch," and of the Mistletoe 
Branch of the Druids. The proof of this must be reserved to the Apocalypse of the 
Past. I may remark, however, in passing, on the wide extent of the worship of a 
sacred branch. Not only do the Negroes in Africa in the worship of the Fetiche, on 
certain occasions, make use of a sacred branch (HURD'S Rites and Ceremonies), 
but even in India there are traces of the same practice. My brother, S. Hislop, Free 
Church Missionary at Nagpore, informs me that the late Rajah of Nagpore used 
every year, on a certain day, to go in state to worship the branch of a particular 
species of tree, called Apta, which had been planted for the occasion, and which, 
after receiving divine honours, was plucked up, and its leaves distributed by the 
native Prince among his nobles. In the streets of the city numerous boughs of the 
same kind of tree were sold, and the leaves presented to friends under the name of 
sona, or "gold." 

** BEROSUS, in BUNSEN'S Egypt. The name "El- Bar" is given above in the 
Hebrew form, as being more familiar to the common reader of the English Bible. 
The Chaldee form of the name is Ala-Bar, which in the Greek of Berosus, is Ala- 
Par, with the ordinary Greek termination os affixed to it. The change of Bar into 
Par in Greek is just on the same principle as Ab, "father," in Greek becomes Appa, 
and Bard, the "spotted one," becomes Pardos, &c. This name, Ala-Bar, was 
probably given by Berosus to Ninyas as the legitimate son and successor of 
Nimrod. That Ala- Par- os was really intended to designate the sovereign referred 
to, as "God the Son," or "the Son of God," is confirmed by another reading of the 
same name as given in Greek. There the name is Alasparos. Now Pyrsiporus, as 
applied to Bacchus, means Ignigena, or the "Seed of Fire"; and Ala-sporos, the 
"Seed of God," is just a similar expression formed in the same way, the name 
being Grecised. 

Under this name he has been found in the sculptures of Nineveh by Layard, the name Bar "the 
Son," having the sign denoting El or "God" prefixed to it. Under the same name he has been 
found by Sir H. Rawlinson, the names "Beltis" and the "Shining Bar" being in immediate 
juxtaposition. Under the name of Bar he was worshipped in Egypt in the earliest times, though in 
later times the god Bar was degraded in the popular Pantheon, to make way for another more 
popular divinity. In Pagan Rome itself, as Ovid testifies, he was worshipped under the name of 
the "Eternal Boy." * Thus daringly and directly was a mere mortal set up in Babylon in 
opposition to the "Son of the Blessed." 

* To understand the true meaning of the above expression, reference must be had 
to a remarkable form of oath among the Romans. In Rome the most sacred form 


of an oath was (as we learn from AULUS GELLIUS), "By Jupiter the STONE." 
This, as it stands, is nonsense. But translate "lapidem" [stone] back into the sacred 
tongue, or Chaldee, and the oath stands, "By Jove, the Son," or "By the son of 
Jove." Ben, which in Hebrew is Son, in Chaldee becomes Eben, which also 
signifies a stone, as may be seen in "Eben-ezer," "The stone of help." Now as the 
most learned inquirers into antiquity have admitted that the Roman Jovis, which 
was anciently the nominative, is just a form of the Hebrew Jehovah, it is evident 
that the oath had originally been, "by the son of Jehovah." This explains how the 
most solemn and binding oath had been taken in the form above referred to; and,it 
shows, also, what was really meant when Bacchus, "the son of Jovis," was called 
"the Eternal Boy." (OVID, Metam.) 

Section III 
The Mother of the Child 

Now while the mother derived her glory in the first instance from the divine character attributed 
to the child in her arms, the mother in the long-run practically eclipsed the son. At first, in all 
likelihood, there would be no thought whatever of ascribing divinity to the mother. There was an 
express promise that necessarily led mankind to expect that, at some time or other, the Son of 
God, in amazing condescension, should appear in this world as the Son of man. But there was no 
promise whatever, or the least shadow of a promise, to lead any one to anticipate that a woman 
should ever be invested with attributes that should raise her to a level with Divinity. It is in the 
last degree improbable, therefore, that when the mother was first exhibited with the child in her 
arms, it should be intended to give divine honours to her. She was doubtless used chiefly as a 
pedestal for the upholding of the divine Son, and holding him forth to the adoration of mankind; 
and glory enough it would be counted for her, alone of all the daughters of Eve, to have given 
birth to the promised seed, the world's only hope. But while this, no doubt, was the design, it is a 
plain principle in all idolatries that that which most appeals to the senses must make the most 
powerful impression. Now the Son, even in his new incarnation, when Nimrod was believed to 
have reappeared in a fairer form, was exhibited merely as a child, without any very particular 
attraction; while the mother in whose arms he was, was set off with all the art of painting and 
sculpture, as invested with much of that extraordinary beauty which in reality belonged to her. 
The beauty of Semiramis is said on one occasion to have quelled a rising rebellion among her 
subjects on her sudden appearance among them; and it is recorded that the memory of the 
admiration excited in their minds by her appearance on that occasion was perpetuated by a statue 
erected in Babylon, representing her in the guise in which she had fascinated them so much. * 

* VALERIUS MAXEVIUS. Valerius Maximus does not mention anything about 
the representation of Semiramis with the child in her arms; but as Semiramis was 
deified as Rhea, whose distinguishing character was that of goddess Mother, and 
as we have evidence that the name, "Seed of the Woman," or Zoroaster, goes back 
to the earliest times- -viz., her own day (CLERICUS, De Chaldoeis), this implies 
that if there was any image-worship in these times, that "Seed of the Woman" 
must have occupied a prominent place in it. As over all the world the Mother and 
the child appear in some shape or other, and are found on the early Egyptian 
monuments, that shows that this worship must have had its roots in the primeval 
ages of the world. If, therefore, the mother was represented in so fascinating a 


form when singly represented, we may be sure that the same beauty for which she 
was celebrated would be given to her when exhibited with the child in her arms. 

This Babylonian queen was not merely in character coincident with the Aphrodite of Greece and 
the Venus of Rome, but was, in point of fact, the historical original of that goddess that by the 
ancient world was regarded as the very embodiment of everything attractive in female form, and 
the perfection of female beauty; for Sanchuniathon assures us that Aphrodite or Venus was 
identical with Astarte, and Astarte being interpreted, is none other than "The woman that made 
towers or encompassing walls"--i.e., Semiramis. The Roman Venus, as is well known, was the 
Cyprian Venus, and the Venus of Cyprus is historically proved to have been derived from 
Babylon. Now, what in these circumstances might have been expected actually took place. If the 
child was to be adored, much more the mother. The mother, in point of fact, became the 
favourite object of worship. * 

* How extraordinary, yea, frantic, was the devotion in the minds of the 
Babylonians to this goddess queen, is sufficiently proved by the statement of 
Herodotus, as to the way in which she required to be propitiated. That a whole 
people should ever have consented to such a custom as is there described, shows 
the amazing hold her worship must have gained over them. Nonnus, speaking of 
the same goddess, calls her "The hope of the whole world." (DIONUSIACA in 
BRYANT) It was the same goddess, as we have seen, who was worshipped at 
Ephesus, whom Demetrius the silversmith characterised as the goddess "whom all 
Asia and the world worshipped" (Acts 19:27). So great was the devotion to this 
goddess queen, not of the Babylonians only, but of the ancient world in general, 
that the fame of the exploits of Semiramis has, in history, cast the exploits of her 
husband Ninus or Nimrod, entirely into the shade. 

In regard to the identification of Rhea or Cybele and Venus, 7 


The Identification of Rhea or Cybele and Venus 

In the exoteric doctrine of Greece and Rome, the characters of Cybele, the mother of the gods, and of Venus, the 
goddess of love, are generally very distinct, insomuch that some minds may perhaps find no slight difficulty in 
regard to the identification of these two divinities. But that difficulty will disappear, if the fundamental principle of 
the Mysteries be borne in mind— viz., that at bottom they recognised only Adad, "The One God." Adad being Triune, 
this left room, when the Babylonian Mystery of Iniquity took shape, for three different FORMS of divinity— the 
father, the mother, and the son; but all the multiform divinities with which the Pagan world abounded, whatever 
diversities there were among them, were resolved substantially into so many manifestations of one or other of these 
divine persons, or rather of two, for the first person was generally in the background. We have distinct evidence that 
this was the case. Apuleius tells us, that when he was initiated, the goddess Isis revealed herself to him as "The first 
of the celestials, and the uniform manifestation of the gods and goddesses. ..WHOSE ONE SOLE DIVINITY the 
whole orb of the earth venerated, and under a manifold form, with different rites, and under a variety of 
appellations"; and going over many of these appellations, she declares herself to be at once "Pessinuntica, the 
mother of the gods [i.e. Cybele], and Paphian Venus." Now, as this was the case in the later ages of the Mysteries, so 
it must have been the case from the very beginning; because they SET OUT, and necessarily set out, with the 
doctrine of the UNITY of the Godhead. This, of course, would give rise to no little absurdity and inconsistency in 
the very nature of the case. Both Wilkinson and Bunsen, to get rid of the inconsistencies they have met with in the 
Egyptian system, have found it necessary to have recourse to substantially the same explanation as I have done. 
Thus we find Wilkinson saying: "I have stated that Amun-re and other gods took the form of different deities, 
which, though it appears at first sight to present some difficulty, may readily be accounted for when we consider that 
each of those whose figures or emblem were adopted, was only an EMANATION, or deified attribute of the SAME 
GREAT BEING to whom they ascribed various characters, according to the several offices he was supposed to 


perform." The statement of Bunsen is to the same effect, and it is this: "Upon these premises, we think ourselves 
justified in concluding that the two series of gods were originally identical, and that, in the GREAT PAIR of gods, 
all those attributes were concentrated, from the development of which, in various personifications, that mythological 
system sprang up which we have been already considering." 

The bearing of all this upon the question of the identification of Cybele and Astarte, or Venus, is important. 
Fundamentally, there was but one goddess— the Holy Spirit, represented as female, when the distinction of sex was 
wickedly ascribed to the Godhead, through a perversion of the great Scripture idea, that all the children of God are at 
once begotten of the Father, and born of the Spirit; and under this idea, the Spirit of God, as Mother, was represented 
under the form of a dove, in memory of the fact that that Spirit, at the creation, "fluttered "--for so, as I have 
observed, is the exact meaning of the term in Genesis l:2--"on the face of the waters." This goddess, then, was 
called Ops, "the flutterer," or Juno, "The Dove," or Khubele, "The binder with cords," which last title had reference 
to "the bands of love, the cords of a man" (called in Hosea 1 1:4, " Khubeli Adam"), with which not only does God 
@mL3 continually, by His providential goodness, draw men unto Himself, but with which our first parent Adam, 
through the Spirit's indwelling, while the covenant of Eden was unbroken, was sweetly bound to God. This theme is 
minutely dwelt on in Pagan story, and the evidence is very abundant; but I cannot enter upon it here. Let this only be 
noticed, however, that the Romans joined the two terms Juno and Khubele— or, as it is commonly pronounced, 
Cybele --together; and on certain occasions invoked their supreme goddess, under the name of Juno Covella--that is, 
"The dove that binds with cords." 

If the reader looks, in Layard, at the triune emblem of the supreme Assyrian divinity, he will see this very idea 
visibly embodied. There the wings and tail of the dove have two bands associated with them instead of feet 
(LAYARD'S Nineveh and its Remains, vol. ii. p. 418; see also accompanying woodcut ( Fig. 61 ). from BRYANT, 
vol. ii. p. 216; and KITTO'sfiifr. Cyclop., vol. i. p. 425). 

Fig. 61 : Supreme Divinity of Ancient Persia, with bands of 
Cybele, "the Binder with Cords" 

From BRYANT, vol. ii. p. 216 

In reference to events after the Fall, Cybele got a new idea attached to her name. Khubel signifies not only to "bind 
with cords," but also "to travail in birth"; and therefore Cybele appeared as the "Mother of the gods," by whom all 
God's children must be born anew or regenerated. But, for this purpose, it was held indispensable that there should 
be a union in the first instance with Rhea, "The gazer," the human "mother of gods and men," that the ruin she had 
introduced might be remedied. Hence the identification of Cybele and Rhea, which in all the Pantheons are declared 
to be only two different names of the same goddess, though, as we have seen, these goddesses were in reality 
entirely distinct. This same principle was applied to all the other deified mothers. They were deified only through 
the supposed miraculous identification with them of Juno or Cybele --in other words, of the Holy Spirit of God. Each 
of these mothers had her own legend, and had special worship suited thereto; but, as in all cases, she was held to be 
an incarnation of the one spirit of God, as the great Mother of all, the attributes of that one Spirit were always pre - 
supposed as belonging to her. This, then, was the case with the goddess recognised as Astarte or Venus, as well as 
with Rhea. Though there were points of difference between Cybele, or Rhea, and Astarte or Mylitta, the Assyrian 


To justify this worship, the mother was raised to divinity as well as her son, and she was looked 
upon as destined to complete that bruising of the serpent's head, which it was easy, if such a 
thing was needed, to find abundant and plausible reasons for alleging that Ninus or Nimrod, the 
great Son, in his mortal life had only begun. 

The Roman Church maintains that it was not so much the seed of the woman, as the woman 
herself, that was to bruise the head of the serpent. In defiance of all grammar, she renders the 
Divine denunciation against the serpent thus: "She shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise 
her heel." The same was held by the ancient Babylonians, and symbolically represented in their 
temples. In the uppermost story of the tower of Babel, or temple of Belus, Diodorus Siculus tells 
us there stood three images of the great divinities of Babylon; and one of these was of a woman 
grasping a serpent's head. Among the Greeks the same thing was symbolised; for Diana, whose 
real character was originally the same as that of the great Babylonian goddess, was represented 
as bearing in one of her hands a serpent deprived of its head. As time wore away, and the facts of 
Semiramis' history became obscured, her son's birth was boldly declared to be miraculous: and 
therefore she was called "Alma Mater," * "the Virgin Mother." 

* The term Alma is the precise term used by Isaiah in the Hebrew of the Old 
Testament, when announcing, 700 years before the event, that Christ should be 
born of a Virgin. If the question should be asked, how this Hebrew term Alma 
(not in a Roman, but a Hebrew sense) could find its way to Rome, the answer is, 
Through Etruria, which had an intimate connection with Assyria. The word 
"mater" itself, from which comes our own "mother," is originally Hebrew. It 
comes from Heb. Msh, "to draw forth," in Egyptian Ms, "to bring forth" 
(BUNSEN), which in the Chaldee form becomes Mt, whence the Egyptian Maut, 

Venus, Layard shows that there were also distinct points of contact between them. Cybele or Rhea was remarkable 
for her turreted crown. Mylitta, or Astarte, was represented with a similar crown. Cybele, or Rhea, was drawn by 
lions; Mylitta, or Astarte, was represented as standing on a lion. The worship of Mylitta, or Astarte, was a mass of 
moral pollution (HERODOTUS). The worship of Cybele, under the name of Terra, was the same (AUGUSTINE, 
De Civitate). 

The first deified woman was no doubt Semiramis, as the first deified man was her husband. But it is evident that it 
was some time after the Mysteries began that this deification took place; for it was not till after Semiramis was dead 
that she was exalted to divinity, and worshipped under the form of a dove. When, however, the Mysteries were 
originally concocted, the deeds of Eve, who, through her connection with the serpent, brought forth death , must 
necessarily have occupied a place; for the Mystery of sin and death lies at the very foundation of all religion, and in 
the age of Semiramis and Nimrod, and Shem and Ham, all men must have been well acquainted with the facts of the 
Fall. At first the sin of Eve may have been admitted in all its sinfulness (otherwise men generally would have been 
shocked, especially when the general conscience had been quickened through the zeal of Shem); but when a woman 
was to be deified, the shape that the mystic story came to assume shows that that sin was softened, yea, that it 
changed its very character, and that by a perversion of the name given to Eve, as "the mother of all living ones," that 
is, all the regenerate, she was glorified as the authoress of spiritual life, and, under the very name Rhea, was 
recognised as the mother of the gods. Now, those who had the working of the Mystery of Iniquity did not find it 
very difficult to show that this name Rhea, originally appropriate to the mother of mankind, was hardly less 
appropriate for her who was the actual mother of the gods, that is, of all the deified mortals. Rhea, in the active 
sense, signifies "the Gazing woman," but in the passive it signifies "The woman gazed at," that is, "The beauty," and 
thus, under one and the same term, the mother of mankind and the mother of the Pagan gods, that is, Semiramis, 
were amalgamated; insomcuh, that now, as is well known, Rhea is currently recognised as the "Mother of gods and 
men" (HESIOD, Theogon). It is not wonderful, therefore that the name Rhea is found applied to her, who, by the 
Assyrians, was worshipped in the very character of Astarte or Venus. 


"mother." Erh or Er, as in English (and a similar form is found in Sanscrit), is, 
"The doer." So that Mater or Mother signifies "The bringer forth." 

It may be thought an objection to the above account of the epithet Alma, that this 
term is often applied to Venus, who certainly was no virgin. But this objection is 
more apparent than real. On the testimony of Augustine, himself an eye-witness, 
we know that the rites of Vesta, emphatically "the virgin goddess of Rome," 
under the name of Terra, were exactly the same as those of Venus, the goddess of 
impurity and licentiousness (AUGUSTINE, De Civitate Dei). Augustine 
elsewhere says that Vesta, the virgin goddess, "was by some called Venus." 

Even in the mythology of our own Scandinavian ancestors, we have a remarkable 
evidence that Alma Mater, or the Virgin Mother, had been originally known to 
them. One of their gods called Heimdal, who is described in the most exalted 
terms, as having such quick perceptions as that he could hear the grass growing 
on the ground, or the wool on the sheep's back, and whose trumpet, when it blew, 
could be heard through all the worlds, is called by the paradoxical name, "the son 
of nine virgins." (MALLET) Now this obviously contains an enigma. Let the 
language in which the religion of Odin was originally delivered- -viz., the 
Chaldee, be brought to bear upon it, and the enigma is solved at once. In Chaldee 
"the son of nine virgins" is Ben-Almut-Teshaah. But in pronunciation this is 
identical with "Ben-Almet-Ishaa," "the son of the virgin of salvation." That son 
was everywhere known as the "saviour seed." "Zera-hosha" and his virgin mother 
consequently claimed to be "the virgin of salvation." Even in the very heavens the 
God of Providence has constrained His enemies to inscribe a testimony to the 
great Scriptural truth proclaimed by the Hebrew prophet, that a "virgin should 
bring forth a son, whose name should be called Immanuel." The constellation 
Virgo, as admitted by the most learned astronomers, was dedicated to Ceres (Dr. 
JOHN HILL, in his Urania, and Mr. A. JAMIESON, in his Celestial Atlas), who 
is the same as the great goddess of Babylon, for Ceres was worshipped with the 
babe at her breast (SOPHOCLES, Antigone), even as the Babylonian goddess 
was. Virgo was originally the Assyrian Venus, the mother of Bacchus or 
Tammuz. Virgo then, was the Virgin Mother. Isaiah's prophecy was carried by the 
Jewish captives to Babylon, and hence the new title bestowed upon the 
Babylonian goddess. 

That the birth of the Great Deliverer was to be miraculous, was widely known long before the 
Christian era. For centuries, some say for thousands of years before that event, the Buddhist 
priests had a tradition that a Virgin was to bring firth a child to bless the world. That this 
tradition came from no Popish or Christian source, is evident from the surprise felt and expressed 
by the Jesuit missionaries, when they first entered Thibet and China, and not only found a mother 
and a child worshipped as at home, but that mother worshipped under a character exactly 
corresponding with that of their own Madonna, "Virgo Deipara," "The Virgin mother of God," * 
and that, too, in regions where they could not find the least trace of either the name or history of 
our Lord Jesus Christ having ever been known. 

* See Sir J. F. DAVIS'S China, and LAFITAN, who says that the accounts sent 
home by the Popish missionaries bore that the sacred books of the Chinese spoke 


not merely of a Holy Mother, but of a Virgin Mother. For further evidence on this 

The primeval promise that the "seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head," naturally 
suggested the idea of a miraculous birth. Priestcraft and human presumption set themselves 
wickedly to anticipate the fulfilment of that promise; and the Babylonian queen seems to have 
been the first to whom that honour was given. The highest titles were accordingly bestowed upon 
her. She was called the "queen of heaven." (Jer 44:17,18,19,25) * 

* When Ashta, or "the woman," came to be called the "queen of heaven," the 
name "woman" became the highest title of honour applied to a female. This 
accounts for what we find so common among the ancient nations of the East, that 
queens and the most exalted personages were addressed by the name of "woman." 
"Woman" is not a complimentary title in our language; but formerly it had been 
applied by our ancestors in the very same way as among the Orientals; for our 
word "Queen" is derived from Cwino, which in the ancient Gothic just signified a 

In Egypt she was styled Athor--i.e., "the Habitation of God," (BUNSEN) to signify that in her 
dwelt all the "fulness of the Godhead." To point out the great goddess- mother, in a Pantheistic 
sense, as at once the Infinite and Almighty one, and the Virgin mother, this inscription was 
engraven upon one of her temples in Egypt: "I am all that has been, or that is, or that shall be. No 
mortal has removed my veil. The fruit which I have brought forth is the Sun." (Ibid.) In Greece 
she had the name of Hesita, and amongst the Romans, Vesta, which is just a modification of the 
same name- -a name which, though it has been commonly understood in a different sense, really 
meant "The Dwelling-place." * 

* Hestia, in Greek, signifies "a house" or "dwelling." This is usually thought to be 
a secondary meaning of the word, its proper meaning being believed to be "fire." 
But the statements made in regard to Hestia, show that the name is derived from 
Hes or Hese, "to cover, to shelter," which is the very idea of a house, which 

The Virgin Mother of Paganism 

"Almost all the Tartar princes," says SALVERTE (Des Sciences Occultes), "trace their genealogy to a celestial 
virgin, impregnated by a sun-beam, or some equally miraculous means." In India, the mother of Surya, the sun-god, 
who was born to destroy the enemies of the gods, is said to have become pregnant in this way, a beam of the sun 
having entered her womb, in consequence of which she brought forth the sun-god. Now the knowledge of this 
widely diffused myth casts light on the secret meaning of the name Aurora, given to the wife of Orion, to whose 
marriage with that "mighty hunter" Homer refers {Odyssey). While the name Aur-ora, in the physical sense, signifies 
also "pregnant with light"; and from "ohra," "to conceive" or be "pregnant," we have in Greek, the word for a wife. 
As Orion, according to Persian accounts, was Nimrod; and Nimrod, under the name of Ninus, was worshipped as the 
son of his wife, when he came to be deified as the sun-god, that name Aurora, as applied to his wife, is evidently 
intended to convey the very same idea as prevails in Tartary and India. These myths of the Tartars and Hindoos 
clearly prove that the Pagan idea of the miraculous conception had not come from any intermixture of Christianity 
with that superstition, but directly from the promise of "the seed of the woman." But how, it may be asked, could the 
idea of being pregnant with a sunbeam arise? There is reason to believe that it came from one of the natural names 
of the sun. From the Chaldean zhr, "to shine," comes, in the participle active, zuhro or zuhre, "the Shiner"; and 
hence, no doubt, from zuhro, "the Shiner," under the prompting of a designing priesthood, men would slide into the 
idea of zuro, "the seed," --"the Shiner" and "the seed," according to the genius of Paganism, being thus identified. 
This was manifestly the case in Persia, where the sun as the great divinity; for the "Persians," says Maurice, "called 
God Sure" {Antiquities). 


"covers" or "shelters" from the inclemency of the weather. The verb "Hes" also 
signifies "to protect," to "show mercy," and from this evidently comes the 
character of Hestia as "the protectress of suppliants." Taking Hestia as derived 
from Hes, "to cover," or "shelter," the following statement of Smith is easily 
accounted for: "Hestia was the goddess of domestic life, and the giver of all 
domestic happiness; as such she was believed to dwell in the inner part of every 
house, and to have invented the art of building houses." If "fire" be supposed to be 
the original idea of Hestia, how could "fire" ever have been supposed to be "the 
builder of houses"! But taking Hestia in the sense of the Habitation or Dwelling- 
place, though derived from Hes, "to shelter," or "cover," it is easy to see how 
Hestia would come to be identified with "fire." The goddess who was regarded as 
the "Habitation of God" was known by the name of Ashta, "The Woman"; while 
"Ashta" also signified "The fire"; and thus Hestia or Vesta, as the Babylonian 
system was developed, would easily come to be regarded as "Fire," or "the 
goddess of fire." For the reason that suggested the idea of the Goddess- mother 
being a Habitation. 9 

The Goddess Mother as a Habitation 

What could ever have induced mankind to think of calling the great Goddess-mother, or mother of gods and men, a 
House or Habitation? The answer is evidently to be found in a statement made in Genesis 2:21, in regard to the 
formation of the mother of mankind: "And the Lord caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept, and he took 
one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib which the Lord God had taken from man, made 
(margin, literally BUILD ED) he into a woman." That this history of the rib was well known to the Babylonians, is 
manifest from one of the names given to their primeval goddess, as found in Berosus. That name is Thalatth. But 
Thalatth is just the Chaldean form of the Hebrew Tzalaa, in the feminine,— the very word used in Genesis for the rib, 
of which Eve was formed; and the other name which Berosus couples with Thalatth, does much to confirm this; for 
that name, which is Omorka, * just signifies "The Mother of the world." 

* From "Am," "mother," and "arka," "earth." The first letter aleph in both of these words is often pronounced as o. Thus the 
pronunciation of a in Am, "mother," is seen in the Greek a "shoulder." Am, "mother," comes from am, "to support," and 
from am, pronounced om , comes the shoulder thaxbears burdens. Hence also the name Oma, as one of the names of Bona 
Des. Oma is evidently the "Mother." 

When we have thus deciphered the meaning of the name Thalatth, as applied to the "mother of the world," that leads 
us at once to the understanding, of the name Thalasius, applied by the Romans to the god of marriage, the origin of 
which name has hitherto been sought in vain. Thalatthi signifies "belonging to the rib," and, with the Roman 
termination, becomes Thalatthius or "Thalasius, the man of the rib." And what name more appropriate than this for 
Adam, as the god of marriage, who, when the rib was brought to him, said, "This is now bone of my bones, and 
flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. " At first, when Thalatth, the rib, 
was builded into a woman, that "woman" was, in a very important sense, the "Habitation" or "Temple of God"; and 
had not the Fall intervened, all her children would, in consequence of mere natural generation, have been the 
children of God. The entrance of sin into the world subverted the original constitution of things. Still, when the 
promise of a Saviour was given and embraced, the renewed indwelling of the Holy Spirit was given too, not that she 
might thereby have any power in herself to bring forth children unto God, but only that she might duly act the part of 
a mother to a spiritually living offspring— to those whom God of his free grace should quicken, and bring from death 
unto life. Now, Paganism willingly overlooked all this; and taught, as soon as its votaries were prepared for 
receiving it, that this renewed indwelling of the spirit of God in the woman, was identification, and so it deified her. 
Then Rhea, "the gazer," the mother of mankind, was identified with Cybele "the binder with cords," or Juno, "the 
Dove," that is, the Holy Spirit. Then, in the blasphemous Pagan sense, she became Athor, "the Habitation of God," 
or Sacca, or Sacta, "the tabernacle" or "temple," in whom dwelt "all the fulness of the Godhead bodily." Thus she 
became Heva, "The Living One"; not in the sense in which Adam gave that name to his wife after the Fall, when the 
hope of life out of the midst of death was so unexpectedly presented to her as well as to himself; but in the sense of 
the communicator of spiritual and eternal life to men; for Rhea was called the "fountain of the blessed ones." The 


As the Dwelling-place of Deity, thus is Hestia or Vesta addressed in the Orphic Hymns: 

"Daughter of Saturn, venerable dame, 

Who dwell'st amid great fire's eternal flame, 

In thee the gods have fix'd their DWELLING-PLACE, 

Strong stable basis of the mortal race." * 

* TAYLOR'S Orphic Hymns: Hymn to Vesta. Though Vesta is here called the 
daughter of Saturn, she is also identified in all the Pantheons with Cybele or 
Rhea, the wife of Saturn. 

Even when Vesta is identified with fire, this same character of Vesta as "The Dwelling-place" 
still distinctly appears. Thus Philolaus, speaking of a fire in the middle of the centre of the world, 

agency, then, of this deified woman was held to be indispensable for the begetting of spiritual children to God, in 
this, as it was admitted, fallen world. Looked at from this point of view, the meaning of the name given to the 
Babylonian goddess in 2 Kings 17:30, will be at once apparent. The name Succoth-benoth has very frequently been 
supposed to be a plural word, and to refer to booths or tabernacles used in Babylon for infamous purposes. But, as 
observed by Clericus (De Chaldoeis), who refers to the Rabbins as being of the same opinion, the context clearly 
shows that the name must be the name of an idol: (vv 29,30), "Howbeit every nation made gods of their own, and 
put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made, every nation in their cities wherein they 
dwelt. And the men of Babylon made Succoth-benoth." It is here evidently an idol that is spoken of; and as the name 
is feminine, that idol must have been the image of a goddess. Taken in this sense, then, and in the light of the 
Chaldean system as now unfolded, the meaning of "Succoth-benoth," as applied to the Babylonian goddess, is just 
"The tabernacle of child-bearing." * 

* That is, the Habitation in which the Spirit of God dwelt, for the purpose of begetting spiritual children. 

When the Babylonian system was developed, Eve was represented as the first that occupied this place, and the very 
name Benoth, that signifies "child-bearing," explains also how it came about that the Woman, who, as Hestia or 
Vesta, was herself called the "Habitation," got the credit of "having invented the art of building houses" (SMITH, 
"Hestia"). Benah, the verb, from which Benoth comes, signifies at once to "bring forth children" and "to build 
houses"; the bringing forth of children being metaphorically regarded as the "building up of the house," that is, of 
the family. 

While the Pagan system, so far as a Goddess -mother was concerned, was founded on this identification of the 
Celestial and Terrestrial mothers of the "blessed" immortals, each of these two divinities was still celebrated as 
having, in some sense, a distinct individuality; and, in consequence, all the different incarnations of the Saviour-seed 
were represented as born of two mothers. It is well known that Bimater, or Two-mothered, is one of the 
distinguishing epithets applied to Bacchus. Ovid makes the reason of the application of this epithet to him to have 
arisen from the myth, that when in embryo, he was rescued from the flames in which is mother died, was sewed up 
in Jupiter's thigh, and then brought forth at the due time. Without inquiring into the secret meaning of this, it is 
sufficient to state that Bacchus had two goddess -mothers; for, not only was he conceived by Semele, but he was 
brought into the world by the goddess Ippa (PROCLUS in Timoeum). This is the very same thing, no doubt, that is 
referred to, when it is said that after his mother Semele's death, his aunt Ino acted the part of a mother and nurse 
unto him. The same thing appears in the mythology of Egypt, for there we read that Osiris, under the form of 
Anubis, having been brought forth by Nepthys, was adopted and brought up by the goddess Isis as her own son. In 
consequence of this, the favourite Triad came everywhere to be the two mothers and the son. In WILKINSON, the 
reader will find a divine Triad, consisting of Isis and Nepthys, and the child of Horus between them. In Babylon, the 
statement of Diodorus shows that the Triad there at one period was two goddesses and the son— Hera, Rhea, and 
Zeus; and in the Capitol at Rome, in like manner, the Triad was Juno, Minerva, and Jupiter; while, when Jupiter was 
worshipped by the Roman matrons as "Jupiter puer," or "Jupiter the child," it was in company with Juno and the 
goddess Fortuna (CICERO, De Divinatione). This kind of divine Triad seems to be traced up to very ancient times 
among the Romans; for it is stated both by Dionysius Halicarnassius and by Livy, that soon after the expulsion of 
the Tarquins, there was at Rome a temple in which were worshipped Ceres, Liber, and Libera (DION. HALICARN 
and LIVY). 


calls it "The Vesta of the universe, The HOUSE of Jupiter, The mother of the gods." In Babylon, 
the title of the goddess-mother as the Dwelling-place of God was Sacca, or in the emphatic form, 
Sacta, that is, "The Tabernacle." Hence, at this day, the great goddesses in India, as wielding all 
the power of the god whom they represent, are called "Sacti," or the "Tabernacle." * 

* KENNEDY and MOOR. A synonym for Sacca, "a tabernacle," is "Ahel," 
which, with the points, is pronounced "Ohel." From the first form of the word, the 
name of the wife of the god Buddha seems to be derived, which, in KENNEDY, 
is Ahalya, and in MOOR'S Pantheon, Ahilya. From the second form, in like 
manner, seems to be derived the name of the wife of the Patriarch of the 
Peruvians, "Mama Oello." (PRESCOTT'S Peru) Mama was by the Peruvians used 
in the Oriental sense: Oello, in all likelihood, was used in the same sense. 

Now in her, as the Tabernacle or Temple of God, not only all power, but all grace and goodness 
were believed to dwell. Every quality of gentleness and mercy was regarded as centred in her; 
and when death had closed her career, while she was fabled to have been deified and changed 
into a pigeon, * to express the celestial benignity of her nature, she was called by the name of 
"D'lune," ** or "The Dove," or without the article, "Juno "--the name of the Roman "queen of 
heaven," which has the very same meaning; and under the form of a dove as well as her own, she 
was worshipped by the Babylonians. 

* DIODORUS SIC. In connection with this the classical reader will remember the 
title of one of the fables in OVID'S Metamorphoses. "Semiramis into a pigeon." 

** Dione, the name of the mother of Venus, and frequently applied to Venus 
herself, is evidently the same name as the above. Dione, as meaning Venus, is 
clearly applied by Ovid to the Babylonian goddess. {Fasti) 

lit. v.vj 

Fig. 25: Dove and Olive Branch of Assyrian Juno 

BRYANT, vol. iii. p. 84. The branch in the hand of Cybele in the above cut is 
only a conventional branch; but in the figure given by Layard it is distinctly 

The dove, the chosen symbol of this deified queen, is commonly represented with an olive 
branch in her mouth (Fig. 25) , as she herself in her human form also is seen bearing the olive 
branch in her hand; and from this form of representing her, it is highly probable that she has 
derived the name by which she is commonly known, for "Z'emir-amit" means "The branch- 
bearer." * 

* From Ze, "the" or "that," emir, "branch," and omit, "bearer," in the feminine. 
HESYCHIUS says that Semiramis is a name or a "wild pigeon." The above 
explanation of the original meaning of the name Semiramis, as referring to Noah's 


wild pigeon (for it was evidently a wild one, as the tame one would not have 
suited the experiment), may account for its application by the Greeks to any wild 

When the goddess was thus represented as the Dove with the olive branch, there can be no doubt 
that the symbol had partly reference to the story of the flood; but there was much more in the 
symbol than a mere memorial of that great event. "A branch," as has been already proved, was 
the symbol of the deified son, and when the deified mother was represented as a Dove, what 
could the meaning of this representation be but just to identify her with the Spirit of all grace, 
that brooded, dove-like, over the deep at the creation; for in the sculptures at Nineveh, as we 
have seen, the wings and tail of the dove represented the third member of the idolatrous Assyrian 
trinity. In confirmation of this view, it must be stated that the Assyrian "Juno," or "The Virgin 
Venus," as she was called, was identified with the air. Thus Julius Firmicus says: "The Assyrians 
and part of the Africans wish the air to have the supremacy of the elements, for they have 
consecrated this same [element] under the name of Juno, or the Virgin Venus." Why was air thus 
identified with Juno, whose symbol was that of the third person of the Assyrian trinity? Why, but 
because in Chaldee the same word which signifies the air signifies also the "Holy Ghost." The 
knowledge of this entirely accounts for the statement of Proclus, that "Juno imports the 
generation of soul." Whence could the soul--the spirit of man--be supposed to have its origin, but 
from the Spirit of God. In accordance with this character of Juno as the incarnation of the Divine 
Spirit, the source of life, and also as the goddess of the air, thus is she invoked in the "Orphic 

"O royal Juno, of majestic mien, 

Aerial formed, divine, Jove's blessed queen, 

Throned in the bosom of caerulean air, 

The race of mortals is thy constant care; 

The cooling gales, thy power alone inspires, 

Which nourish life, which every life desires; 

Mother of showers and winds, from thee alone 

Producing all things, mortal life is known; 

All natures show thy temperament divine, 

And universal sway alone is thine, 

With sounding blasts of wind, the swelling sea 

And rolling rivers roar when shook by thee." * 

* TAYLOR'S Orphic Hymns. Every classical reader must be aware of the 
identification of Juno with the air. The following, however, as still further 
illustrative of the subject from Proclus, may not be out of place: "The series of our 
sovereign mistress Juno, beginning from on high, pervades the last of things, and 
her allotment in the sublunary region is the air; for air is a symbol of soul, 
according to which also soul is called a spirit." 

Thus, then, the deified queen, when in all respects regarded as a veritable woman, was at the 
same time adored as the incarnation of the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of peace and love. In the 
temple of Hierapolis in Syria, there was a famous statue of the goddess Juno, to which crowds 
from all quarters flocked to worship. The image of the goddess was richly habited, on her head 
was a golden dove, and she was called by a name peculiar to the country, "Semeion." 
(BRYANT) What is the meaning of Semeion? It is evidently "The Habitation"; * and the "golden 


dove" on her head shows plainly who it was that was supposed to dwell in her--even the Spirit of 

* From Ze, "that," or "the great," and "Maaon,"or Maion, "a habitation," which, 
in the Ionic dialect, in which Lucian, the describer of the goddess, wrote, would 
naturally become Meion. 

When such transcendent dignity was bestowed on her, when such winning characters were 
attributed to her, and when, over and above all, her images presented her to the eyes of men as 
Venus Urania, "the heavenly Venus," the queen of beauty, who assured her worshippers of 
salvation, while giving loose reins to every unholy passion, and every depraved and sensual 
appetite- -no wonder that everywhere she was enthusiastically adored. Under the name of the 
"Mother of the gods," the goddess queen of Babylon became an object of almost universal 
worship. "The Mother of the gods," says Clericus, "was worshipped by the Persians, the Syrians, 
and all the kings of Europe and Asia, with the most profound religious veneration." Tacitus gives 
evidence that the Babylonian goddess was worshipped in the heart of Germany, and Caesar, 
when he invaded Britain, found that the priests of this same goddess, known by the name of 
Druids, had been there before him. * 

* CAESAR, De Bello Gallico. The name Druid has been thought to be derived 
from the Greek Drus, an oak tree, or the Celtic Deru, which has the same 
meaning; but this is obviously a mistake. In Ireland, the name for a Druid is Droi, 
and in Wales Dryw; and it will be found that the connection of the Druids with the 
oak was more from the mere similarity of their name to that of the oak, than 
because they derived their name from it. The Druidic system in all its parts was 
evidently the Babylonian system. Dionysius informs us, that the rites of Bacchus 
were duly celebrated in the British Islands and Strabo cites Artemidorus to show 
that, in an island close to Britain, Ceres and Proserpine were venerated with rites 
similar to the orgies of Samothrace. It will be seen from the account of the 
Druidic Ceridwen and her child, afterwards to be noticed (see Chapter IV, Section 
III), that there was a great analogy between her character and that of the great 
goddess- mother of Babylon. Such was the system; and the name Dryw, or Droi, 
applied to the priests, is in exact accordance with that system. The name Zero, 
given in Hebrew or the early Chaldee, to the son of the great goddess queen, in 
later Chaldee became "Dero." The priest of Dero, "the seed," was called, as is the 
case in almost all religions, by the name of his god; and hence the familiar name 
"Druid" is thus proved to signify the priest of "Dero"--the woman's promised 
"seed." The classical Hamadryads were evidently in like manner priestesses of 
"Hamed- dero, "—"the desired seed"-- i.e., "the desire of all nations." 

Herodotus, from personal knowledge, testifies, that in Egypt this "queen of heaven" was "the 
greatest and most worshipped of all the divinities." Wherever her worship was introduced, it is 
amazing what fascinating power it exerted. Truly, the nations might be said to be "made drunk" 
with the wine of her fornications. So deeply, in particular, did the Jews in the days of Jeremiah 
drink of her wine cup, so bewitched were they with her idolatrous worship, that even after 
Jerusalem had been burnt, and the land desolated for this very thing, they could not be prevailed 
on to give it up. While dwelling in Egypt as forlorn exiles, instead of being witnesses for God 
against the heathenism around them, they were as much devoted to this form of idolatry as the 
Egyptians themselves. Jeremiah was sent of God to denounce wrath against them, if they 


continued to worship the queen of heaven; but his warnings were in vain. "Then," saith the 
prophet, "all the men which knew that their wives had burnt incense unto other gods, and all the 
women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in 
Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of 
the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee; but we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth 
out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink-offerings 
unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, 
and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no 
evil" (Jer 44:15-17). Thus did the Jews, God's own peculiar people, emulate the Egyptians in 
their devotion to the queen of heaven. 

The worship of the goddess- mother with the child in her arms continued to be observed in Egypt 
till Christianity entered. If the Gospel had come in power among the mass of the people, the 
worship of this goddess-queen would have been overthrown. With the generality it came only in 
name. Instead, therefore, of the Babylonian goddess being cast out, in too many cases her name 
only was changed. She was called the Virgin Mary, and, with her child, was worshipped with the 
same idolatrous feeling by professing Christians, as formerly by open and avowed Pagans. The 
consequence was, that when, in AD 325, the Nicene Council was summoned to condemn the 
heresy of Arius, who denied the true divinity of Christ, that heresy indeed was condemned, but 
not without the help of men who gave distinct indications of a desire to put the creature on a 
level with the Creator, to set the Virgin- mother side by side with her Son. At the Council of 
Nice, says the author of "Nimrod," "The Melchite section"- -that is, the representatives of the so- 
called Christianity of Egypt-- "held that there were three persons in the Trinity--the Father, the 
Virgin Mary, and Messiah their Son." In reference to this astounding fact, elicited by the Nicene 
Council, Father Newman speaks exultingly of these discussions as tending to the glorification of 
Mary. "Thus," says he, "the controversy opened a question which it did not settle. It discovered a 
new sphere, if we may so speak, in the realms of light, to which the Church had not yet assigned 
its inhabitant. Thus, there was a wonder in Heaven; a throne was seen far above all created 
powers, mediatorial, intercessory, a title archetypal, a crown bright as the morning star, a glory 
issuing from the eternal throne, robes pure as the heavens, and a sceptre over all. And who was 
the predestined heir of that majesty? Who was that wisdom, and what was her name, the mother 
of fair love, and far, and holy hope, exalted like a palm-tree in Engaddi, and a rose-plant in 
Jericho, created from the beginning before the world, in God's counsels, and in Jerusalem was 
her power? The vision is found in the Apocalypse 'a Woman clothed with the sun, and the moon 
under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.'" * 

* NEWMAN'S Development . The intelligent reader will see at a glance the 
absurdity of applying this vision of the "woman" of the Apocalypse to the Virgin 
Mary. John expressly declares that what he saw was a "sign" or "symbol" 
(semeion). If the woman here is a literal woman, the woman that sits on the seven 
hills must be the same. "The woman" in both cases is a "symbol." "The woman" 
on the seven hills is the symbol of the false church; the woman clothed with the 
sun, of the true church- -the Bride, the Lamb's wife. 

"The votaries of Mary," adds he, "do not exceed the true faith, unless the blasphemers of her Son 
came up to it. The Church of Rome is not idolatrous, unless Arianism is orthodoxy." This is the 
very poetry of blasphemy. It contains an argument too; but what does that argument amount to? 
It just amounts to this, that if Christ be admitted to be truly and properly God, and worthy of 


Divine honours, His mother, from whom He derived merely His humanity, must be admitted to 
be the same, must be raised far above the level of all creatures, and be worshipped as a partaker 
of the Godhead. The divinity of Christ is made to stand or fall with the divinity of His mother. 
Such is Popery in the nineteenth century; yea, such is Popery in England. It was known already 
that Popery abroad was bold and unblushing in its blasphemies; that in Lisbon a church was to be 
seen with these words engraven on its front, "To the virgin goddess of Loretto, the Italian race, 
devoted to her DIVINITY, have dedicated this temple." (Journal of Professor GIBSON, in 
Scottish Protestant) But when till now was such language ever heard in Britain before? This, 
however, is just the exact reproduction of the doctrine of ancient Babylon in regard to the great 
goddess-mother. The Madonna of Rome, then, is just the Madonna of Babylon. The "Queen of 
Heaven" in the one system is the same as the "Queen of Heaven" in the other. The goddess 
worshipped in Babylon and Egypt as the Tabernacle or Habitation of God, is identical with her 
who, under the name of Mary, is called by Rome "The HOUSE consecrated to God," "the awful 
Dwelling-place," * "the Mansion of God" (Pancarpium Marioe), the "Tabernacle of the Holy 
Ghost" (Garden of the Soul), the "Temple of the Trinity" (Golden Manual in Scottish 

* The Golden Manual in Scottish Protestant. The word here used for "Dwelling- 
place" in the Latin of this work is a pure Chaldee word--"Zabulo," and is from the 
same verb as Zebulun (Gen 30:20), the name which was given by Leah to her son, 
when she said "Now will my husband dwell with me." 

Some may possibly be inclined to defend such language, by saying that the Scripture makes 
every believer to be a temple of the Holy Ghost, and, therefore, what harm can there be in 
speaking of the Virgin Mary, who was unquestionably a saint of God, under that name, or names 
of a similar import? Now, no doubt it is true that Paul says (1 Cor 3:16), "Know ye not that ye 
are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" It is not only true, but it is a 
great truth, and a blessed one--a truth that enhances every comfort when enjoyed, and takes the 
sting out of every trouble when it comes, that every genuine Christian has less or more 
experience of what is contained in these words of the same apostle (2 Cor 6:16), "Ye are the 
temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them and walk in them, and I will be 
their God, and they shall be my people." It must also be admitted, and gladly admitted, that this 
implies the indwelling of all the Persons of the glorious Godhead; for the Lord Jesus hath said 
(John 14:23), "If a man love me, he will keep my words; and my Father will love him, and WE 
will come unto him, and make our abode with him." But while admitting all this, on examination 
it will be found that the Popish and the Scriptural ideas conveyed by these expressions, however 
apparently similar, are essentially different. When it is said that a believer is "a temple of God," 
or a temple of the Holy Ghost, the meaning is (Eph 3:17) that "Christ dwells in the heart by 
faith." But when Rome says that Mary is "The Temple" or "Tabernacle of God," the meaning is 
the exact Pagan meaning of the term-- viz., that the union between her and the Godhead is a 
union akin to the hypostatical union between the divine and human nature of Christ. The human 
nature of Christ is the "Tabernacle of God," inasmuch as the Divine nature has veiled its glory in 
such a way, by assuming our nature, that we can come near without overwhelming dread to the 
Holy God. To this glorious truth John refers when he says (John 1:14), "The Word was made 
flesh, and dwelt (literally tabernacled) among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the 
only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." In this sense, Christ, the God- man, is the 
only "Tabernacle of God." Now, it is precisely in this sense that Rome calls Mary the 
"Tabernacle of God," or of the "Holy Ghost." Thus speaks the author of a Popish work devoted 


to the exaltation of the Virgin, in which all the peculiar titles and prerogatives of Christ are given 
to Mary: "Behold the tabernacle of God, the mansion of God, the habitation, the city of God is 
with men, and in men and for men, for their salvation, and exaltation, and eternal 
glorification... Is it most clear that this is true of the holy church? and in like manner also equally 
true of the most holy sacrament of the Lord's body? Is it (true) of every one of us in as far as we 
are truly Christians? Undoubtedly; but we have to contemplate this mystery (as existing) in a 
peculiar manner in the most holy Mother of our Lord." (Pancarpium Marioe) Then the author, 
after endeavouring to show that "Mary is rightly considered as the Tabernacle of God with men," 
and that in a peculiar sense, a sense different from that in which all Christians are the "temple of 
God," thus proceeds with express reference to her in this character of the Tabernacle: "Great 
truly is the benefit, singular is the privilege, that the Tabernacle of God should be with men, IN 
WHICH men may safely come near to God become man." (Ibid.) Here the whole mediatorial 
glory of Christ, as the God- man in whom dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, is 
given to Mary, or at least is shared with her. The above extracts are taken from a work published 
upwards of two hundred years ago. Has the Papacy improved since then? Has it repented of its 
blasphemies? No, the very reverse. The quotation already given from Father Newman proves 
this; but there is still stronger proof. In a recently published work, the same blasphemous idea is 
even more clearly unfolded. While Mary is called "The HOUSE consecrated to God," and the 
"TEMPLE of the Trinity," the following versicle and response will show in what sense she is 
regarded as the temple of the Holy Ghost: "V. The Lord himself created HER in the Holy Ghost, 
and POURED HER out among all his works. V. O Lady, hear," &c. This astounding language 
manifestly implies that Mary is identified with the Holy Ghost, when it speaks of her "being 
poured out" on "all the works of God"; and that, as we have seen, was just the very way in which 
the Woman, regarded as the "Tabernacle" or House of God by the Pagans, was looked upon. 
Where is such language used in regard to the Virgin? Not in Spain; not in Austria; not in the dark 
places of Continental Europe; but in London, the seat and centre of the world's enlightenment. 

The names of blasphemy bestowed by the Papacy on Mary have not one shadow of foundation in 
the Bible, but are all to be found in the Babylonian idolatry. Yea, the very features and 
complexions of the Roman and Babylonian Madonnas are the same. Till recent times, when 
Raphael somewhat departed from the beaten track, there was nothing either Jewish or even 
Italian in the Romish Madonnas. Had these pictures or images of the Virgin Mother been 
intended to represent the mother of our Lord, naturally they would have been cast either in the 
one mould or the other. But it was not so. In a land of dark-eyed beauties, with raven locks, the 
Madonna was always represented with blue eyes and golden hair, a complexion entirely different 
form the Jewish complexion, which naturally would have been supposed to belong to the mother 
of our Lord, but which precisely agrees with that which all antiquity attributes to the goddess 
queen of Babylon. In almost all lands the great goddess has been described with golden or 
yellow hair, showing that there must have been one grand prototype, to which they were all made 
to correspond. The "yellow-haired Ceres," might not have been accounted of any weight in this 
argument if she had stood alone, for it might have been supposed in that case that the epithet 
"yellow-haired" was borrowed from the corn that was supposed to be under her guardian care. 
But many other goddesses have the very same epithet applied to them. Europa, whom Jupiter 
carried away in the form of a bull, is called "The yellow- haired Europa." (OVID, Fasti) Minerva 
is called by Homer "the blue-eyed Minerva," and by Ovid "the yellow- haired"; the huntress 
Diana, who is commonly identified with the moon, is addressed by Anacreon as "the yellow- 
haired daughter of Jupiter," a title which the pale face of the silver moon could surely never have 


suggested. Dione, the mother of Venus, is described by Theocritus as "yellow- haired." Venus 
herself is frequently called "Aurea Venus," the "golden Venus." (HOMER'S Iliad) The Indian 
goddess Lakshmi, the "Mother of the Universe," is described as of "a golden complexion." 
(Asiatic Researches) Ariadne, the wife of Bacchus, was called "the yellow-haired Ariadne." 
(HESIOD, Theogonia) Thus does Dryden refer to her golden or yellow hair: 

"Where the rude waves in Dian's harbour play, 

The fair forsaken Ariadne lay; 

There, sick with grief and frantic with despair, 

Her dress she rent, and tore her golden hair." 

The Gorgon Medusa before her transformation, while celebrated for her beauty, was equally 
celebrated for her golden hair: 

"Medusa once had charms: to gain her love 

A rival crowd of anxious lovers strove. 

They who have seen her, own they ne'er did trace 

More moving features in a sweeter face; 

But above all, her length of hair they own 

In golden ringlets waves, and graceful shone." 

The mermaid that figured so much in the romantic tales of the north, which was evidently 
borrowed from the story of Atergatis, the fish goddess of Syria, who was called the mother of 
Semiramis, and was sometimes identified with Semiramis herself, was described with hair of the 
same kind. "The Ellewoman," such is the Scandinavian name for the mermaid, "is fair," says the 
introduction to the "Danish Tales" of Hans Andersen, "and gold-haired, and plays most sweetly 
on a stringed instrument." "She is frequently seen sitting on the surface of the waters, and 
combing her long golden hair with a golden comb." Even when Athor, the Venus of Egypt, was 
represented as a cow, doubtless to indicate the complexion of the goddess that cow represented, 
the cow's head and neck were gilded. (HERODOTUS and WILKINSON) When, therefore, it is 
known that the most famed pictures of the Virgin Mother h Italy represented her as of a fair 
complexion and with golden hair, and when over all Ireland the Virgin is almost invariably 
represented at this day in the very same manner, who can resist the conclusion that she must have 
been thus represented, only because she had been copied form the same prototype as the Pagan 

Nor is this agreement in complexion only, but also in features. Jewish features are everywhere 
marked, and have a character peculiarly their own. But the original Madonnas have nothing at all 
of Jewish form or feature; but are declared by those who have personally compared both, entirely 
to agree in this respect, as well as in complexion, with the Babylonian Madonnas found by Sir 
Robert Ker Porter among the ruins of Babylon. 

There is yet another remarkable characteristic of these pictures worthy of notice, and that is the 
nimbus or peculiar circle of light that frequently encompasses the head of the Roman Madonna. 
With this circle the heads of the so-called figures of Christ are also frequently surrounded. 
Whence could such a device have originated? In the case of our Lord, if His head had been 
merely surrounded with rays, there might have been some pretence for saying that that was 
borrowed from the Evangelic narrative, where it is stated, that on the holy mount His face 
became resplendent with light. But where, in the whole compass of Scripture, do we ever read 
that His head was surrounded with a disk, or a circle of light? But what will be searched for in 


vain in the Word of God, b found in he artistic representations of the great gods and goddesses 
of Babylon. The disk, and particularly the circle, were the well known symbols of the Sun- 
divinity, and figured largely in the symbolism of the East. With the circle or the disk the head of 
the Sun-divinity was encompassed. The same was the case in Pagan Rome. Apollo, as the child 
of the Sun, was often thus represented. The goddesses that claimed kindred with the Sun were 
equally entitled to be adorned with the nimbus or luminous circle. From Pompeii there is a 
representation of Circe, "the daughter of the Sun" (see Fig. 26) with her head surrounded with a 
circle, in the very same way as the head of the Roman Madonna is at this day surrounded. Let 
any one compare the nimbus around the head of Circe, with that around the head of the Popish 
Virgin, and he will see how exactly they correspond. * 

Fig. ?6. 

Fig. 26: Circe, the Daughter of the Sun 

Pompeii, vol. ii. pp. 91, 92 

* The explanation of the figure is thus given in Pompeii: "One of them [the 
paintings] is taken from the Odyssey, and represents Ulysses and Circe, at the 
moment when the hero, having drunk the charmed cup with impunity, by virtue of 
the antidote given him by Mercury [it is well known that Circe had a 'golden cup,' 
even as the Venus of Babylon had], draws his sword, and advances to avenge his 
companions," who, having drunk of her cup, had been changed into swine. The 
goddess, terrified, makes her submission at once, as described by Homer; Ulysses 
himself being the narrator: 

"Hence, seek the sty, there wallow with thy friends, 

She spake, I drawing from beside my thigh 

My Falchion keen, with death- denouncing looks, 

Rushed on her; she, with a shrill scream of fear, 

Ran under my raised arm, seized fast my knees, 

And in winged accents plaintive, thus began: 

'Say, who art thou,'" &C.--COWPERS Odyssey 


"This picture," adds the author of Pompeii, "is remarkable, as teaching us the 
origin of that ugly and unmeaning glory by which the heads of saints are often 
surrounded... This glory was called nimbus, or aureola, and is defined by Servius 
to be 'the luminous fluid which encircles the heads of the gods.' It belongs with 
peculiar propriety to Circe, as the daughter of the Sun. The emperors, with their 
usual modesty, assumed it as the mark of their divinity; and under this respectable 
patronage it passed, like many other Pagan superstitions and customs, into the use 
of the Church." The emperors here get rather more than a fair share of the blame 
due to them. It was not the emperors that brought "Pagan superstition" into the 
Church, so much as the Bishop of Rome. See Chapter VII, Section II. 

Now, could any one possibly believe that all this coincidence could be accidental. Of course, if 
the Madonna had ever so exactly resembled the Virgin Mary, that would never have excused 
idolatry. But when it is evident that the goddess enshrined in the Papal Church for the supreme 
worship of its votaries, is that very Babylonian queen who set up Nimrod, or Ninus "the Son," as 
the rival of Christ, and who in her own person was the incarnation of every kind of 
licentiousness, how dark a character does that stamp on the Roman idolatry. What will it avail to 
mitigate the heinous character of that idolatry, to say that the child she holds forth to adoration is 
called by the name of Jesus? When she was worshipped with her child in Babylon of old, that 
child was called by a name as peculiar to Christ, as distinctive of His glorious character, as the 
name of Jesus. He was called "Zoro-ashta," "the seed of the woman." But that did not hinder the 
hot anger of God from being directed against those in the days of old who worshipped that 
"image of jealousy, provoking to jealousy." * 

* Ezekiel 8:3. There have been many speculations about what this "image of 
jealousy" could be. But when it is known that the grand feature of ancient idolatry 
was just the worship of the Mother and the child, and that child as the Son of God 
incarnate, all is plain. Compare verses 3 and 5 with verse 14, and it will be seen 
that the "women weeping for Tammuz" were weeping close beside the image of 

Neither can the giving of the name of Christ to the infant in the arms of the Romish Madonna, 
make it less the "image of jealousy," less offensive to the Most High, less fitted to provoke His 
high displeasure, when it is evident that that infant is worshipped as the child of her who was 
adored as Queen of Heaven, with all the attributes of divinity, and was at the same time the 
"Mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." Image -worship in every case the Lord abhors; 
but image- worship of such a kind as this must be peculiarly abhorrent to His holy soul. Now, if 
the facts I have adduced be true, is it wonderful that such dreadful threatenings should be 
directed in the Word of God against the Romish apostacy, and that the vials of this tremendous 
wrath are destined to be outpoured upon its guilty head? If these things be true (and gainsay them 
who can), who will venture now to plead for Papal Rome, or to call her a Christian Church? Is 
there one, who fears God, and who reads these lines, who would not admit that Paganism alone 
could ever have inspired such a doctrine as that avowed by the Melchites at the Nicene Council, 
that the Holy Trinity consisted of "the Father, the Virgin Mary, and the Messiah their Son"? 
(Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, July, 1852) Is there one who would not shrink with horror from 
such a thought? What, then, would the reader say of a Church that teaches its children to adore 
such a Trinity as that contained in the following lines? 


"Heart of Jesus, I adore thee; 

Heart of Mary, I implore thee; 

Heart of Joseph, pure and just; 


* What every Christian must Know and Do. By the Rev. J. FURNISS. Published 
by James Duffy, Dublin. The edition of this Manual of Popery quoted above, 
besides the blasphemy it contains, contains most immoral principles, teaching 
distinctly the harmlessness of fraud, if only kept within due bounds. On this 
account, a great outcry having been raised against it, I believe this edition has 
been withdrawn from general circulation. The genuineness of the passage above 
given is, however, beyond all dispute. I received myself from a fried in Liverpool 
a copy of the edition containing these words, which is now in my possession, 
having previously seen them in a copy in the possession of the Rev. Richard 
Smyth of Armagh. It is not in Ireland, however, only, that such a trinity is 
exhibited for the worship of Romanists. In a Card, or Fly-leaf, issued by the 
Popish priests of Sunderland, now lying before me, with the heading "Paschal 
Duty, St. Mary's Church, Bishopwearmouth, 1859," the following is the 4th 
admonition given to the "Dear Christians" to whom it is addressed: 

"4. And never forget the acts of a good Christian, recommended to you so often 
during the renewal of the Mission. 

Blessed be Jesus, Mary, and Joseph. 

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I give you my heart, my life, and my soul. 

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, assist me always; and in my last agony, 

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, receive my last breath. Amen." 

To induce the adherents of Rome to perform this "act of a good Christian," a 
considerable bribe is held out. In p. 30 of Furniss' Manual above referred to, under 
the head "Rule of Life," the following passage occurs: "In the morning, before 
you get up, make the sign of the cross, and say, Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, I give 
you my heart and my soul. (Each time you say this prayer, you get an indulgence 
of 100 days, which you can give to the souls in Purgatory)!" I must add that the 
title of Furniss' book, as given above, is the title of Mr. Smyth's copy. The title of 
the copy in my possession is "What every Christian must Know." London: 
Richardson & Son, 147 Strand. Both copies alike have the blasphemous words 
given in the text, and both have the "Imprimatur" of "Paulus Cullen." 

If this is not Paganism, what is there that can be called by such a name? Yet this is the Trinity 
which now the Roman Catholics of Ireland from tender infancy are taught to adore. This is the 
Trinity which, in the latest books of catechetical instruction is presented as the grand object of 
devotion to the adherents of the Papacy. The manual that contains this blasphemy comes forth 
with the express "Imprimatur" of "Paulus Cullen," Popish Archbishop of Dublin. Will any one 
after this say that the Roman Catholic Church must still be called Christian, because it holds the 
doctrine of the Trinity? So did the Pagan Babylonians, so did the Egyptians, so do the Hindoos at 
this hour, in the very same sense in which Rome does. They all admitted A trinity, but did they 
worship THE Triune Jehovah, the King Eternal, Immortal, and Invisible? And will any one say 
with such evidence before him, that Rome does so? Away then, with the deadly delusion that 


Rome is Christian! There might once have been some palliation for entertaining such a 
supposition; but every day the "Grand Mystery" is revealing itself more and more in its true 
character. There is not, and there cannot be, any safety for the souls of men in "Babylon." "Come 
out of her, my people," is the loud and express command of God. Those who disobey that 
command, do it at their peril. 

Chapter III 


Section I. Christmas and Lady -day 

If Rome be indeed the Babylon of the Apocalypse, and the Madonna enshrined in her sanctuaries 
be the very queen of heaven, for the worshipping of whom the fierce anger of God was provoked 
against the Jews in the days of Jeremiah, it is of the last consequence that the fact should be 
established beyond all possibility of doubt; for that being once established, every one who 
trembles at the Word of God must shudder at the very thought of giving such a system, either 
individually or nationally, the least countenance or support. Something has been said already that 
goes far to prove the identity of the Roman and Babylonian systems; but at every step the 
evidence becomes still more overwhelming. That which arises from comparing the different 
festivals is peculiarly so. 

The festivals of Rome are innumerable; but five of the most important may be singled out for 
elucidation- -viz., Christmas-day, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the 
Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian. And first, as to the festival in 
honour of the birth of Christ, or Christmas. How comes it that that festival was connected with 
the 25th of December? There is not a word in the Scriptures about the precise day of His birth, or 
the time of the year when He was born. What is recorded there, implies that at what time soever 
His birth took place, it could not have been on the 25th of December. At the time that the angel 
announced His birth to the shepherds of Bethlehem, they were feeding their flocks by night in 
the open fields. Now, no doubt, the climate of Palestine is not so severe as the climate of this 
country; but even there, though the heat of the day be considerable, the cold of the night, from 
December to February, is very piercing, and it was not the custom for the shepherds of Judea to 
watch their flocks in the open fields later than about the end of October. * 

* GILL, in his Commentary on Luke 2:8, has the following: "There are two sorts 
of cattle with the Jews. ..there are the cattle of the house that lie in the city; the 
cattle of the wilderness are they that lie in the pastures. On which one of the 
commentators (MAIMONIDES, in Misn. Betza), observes, 'These lie in the 
pastures, which are in the villages, all the days of the cold and heat, and do not go 
into the cities until the rains descend.' The first rain falls in the month 
Marchesvan, which answers to the latter part of our October and the former part 
of November... From whence it appears that Christ must be born before the middle 
of October, since the first rain was not yet come." KITTO, on Deuteronomy 11:14 
(Illustrated Commentary), says that the "first rain," is in "autumn," "that is, in 
September or October." This would make the time of the removal of the flocks 
from the fields somewhat earlier than I have stated in the text; but there is no 
doubt that it could not be later than there stated, according to the testimony of 


Maimonides, whose acquaintance with all that concerns Jewish customs is well 

It is in the last degree incredible, then, that the birth of Christ could have taken place at the end 
of December. There is great unanimity among commentators on this point. Besides Barnes, 
Doddridge, Lightfoot, Joseph Scaliger, and Jennings, in his "Jewish Antiquities," who are all of 
opinion that December 25th could not be the right time of our Lord's nativity, the celebrated 
Joseph Mede pronounces a very decisive opinion to the same effect. After a long and careful 
disquisition on the subject, among other arguments he adduces the following;- -'At the birth of 
Christ every woman and child was to go to be taxed at the city whereto they belonged, whither 
some had long journeys; but the middle of winter was not fitting for such a business, especially 
for women with child, and children to travel in. Therefore, Christ could not be born in the depth 
of winter. Again, at the time of Christ's birth, the shepherds lay abroad watching with their flocks 
in the night time; but this was not likely to be in the middle of winter. And if any shall think the 
winter wind was not so extreme in these parts, let him remember the words of Christ in the 
gospel, 'Pray that your flight be not in the winter.' If the winter was so bad a time to flee in, it 
seems no fit time for shepherds to lie in the fields in, and women and children to travel in." 
Indeed, it is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties * that the day of our 
Lord's birth cannot be determined, ** and that within the Christian Church no such festival as 
Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far 
advanced did it gain much observance. 

* Archdeacon WOOD, in Christian Annotator, LORIMER's Manual of 
Presbytery. Lorimer quotes Sir Peter King, who, in his Enquiry into the Worship 
of the Primitive Church, &c, infers that no such festival was observed in that 
Church, and adds-- "It seems improbably that they should celebrate Christ's 
nativity when they disagreed about the month and the day when Christ was born." 
See also Rev. J. RYLE, in his Commentary on Luke, who admits that the time of 
Christ's birth is uncertain, although he opposes the idea that the flocks could not 
have been in the open fields in December, by an appeal to Jacob's complaint to 
Laban, "By day the drought consumed me, and the frost by night." Now the whole 
force of Jacob's complaint against his churlish kinsman lay in this, that Laban 
made him do what no other man would have done, and, therefore, if he refers to 
the cold nights of winter (which, however, is not the common understanding of 
the expression), it proves just the opposite of what it is brought by Mr. Ryle to 
prove--viz., that it was not the custom for shepherds to tend their flocks in the 
fields by night in winter. 

** GIESELER, CHRYSOSTOM (Monitum in Horn, de Natal. Christi), writing in 
Antioch about AD 380, says: "It is not yet ten years since this day was made 
known to us". "What follows," adds Gieseler, "furnishes a remarkable illustration 
of the ease with which customs of recent date could assume the character of 
apostolic institutions." Thus proceeds Chrysostom: "Among those inhabiting the 
west, it was known before from ancient and primitive times, and to the dwellers 
from Thrace to Gadeira [Cadiz] it was previously familiar and well-known," that 
is, the birth-day of our Lord, which was unknown at Antioch in the east, on the 
very borders of the Holy Land, where He was born, was perfectly well-known in 
all the European region of the west, from Thrace even to Spain! 


How, then, did the Romish Church fix on December the 25th as Christmas-day? Why, thus: 
Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated 
among the heathen, at that precise time of the year, in honour of the birth of the son of the 
Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the 
heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was 
adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of 
Christians to meet Paganism half-way was very early developed; and we find Tertullian, even in 
his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this 
respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the Pagans to their own superstition. "By us," 
says he, "who are strangers to Sabbaths, and new moons, and festivals, once acceptable to God, 
the Saturnalia, the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and Matronalia, are now frequented; gifts are 
carried to and fro, new year's day presents are made with din, and sports and banquets are 
celebrated with uproar; oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take 
special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians." Upright men strive to stem the tide, but 
in spite of all their efforts, the apostacy went on, till the Church, with the exception of a small 
remnant, was submerged under Pagan superstition. That Christmas was originally a Pagan 
festival, is beyond all doubt. The time of the year, and the ceremonies with which it is still 
celebrated, prove its origin. In Egypt, the son of Isis, the Egyptian title for the queen of heaven, 
was born at this very time, "about the time of the winter solstice." The very name by which 
Christmas is popularly known among ourselves--Yule-day --proves at once its Pagan and 
Babylonian origin. "Yule" is the Chaldee name for an "infant" or "little child"; * and as the 25th 
of December was called by our Pagan Anglo-Saxon ancestors, "Yule-day," or the "Child's day," 
and the night that preceded it, "Mother- night," long before they came in contact with 
Christianity, that sufficiently proves its real character. 

* From Eol, an "infant." In Scotland, at least in the Lowlands, the Yule-cakes are 
also called Nur-cakes. Now in Chaldee Nour signifies "birth." Therefore, Nur- 
cakes are "birth-cakes." The Scandinavian goddesses, called "norns," who 
appointed children their destinies at their birth, evidently derived their name from 
the cognate Chaldee word "Nor," a child. 

Far and wide, in the realms of Paganism, was this birth-day observed. This festival has been 
commonly believed to have had only an astronomical character, referring simply to the 
completion of the sun's yearly course, and the commencement of a new cycle. But there is 
indubitably evidence that the festival in question had a much higher reference than this --that it 
commemorated not merely the figurative birth-day of the sun in the renewal of its course, but the 
birth-day of the grand Deliverer. Among the Sabeans of Arabia, who regarded the moon, and not 
the sun, as the visible symbol of the favourite object of their idolatry, the same period was 
observed as the birth festival. Thus we read in Stanley's Sabean Philosophy: "On the 24th of the 
tenth month," that is December, according to our reckoning, "the Arabians celebrated the 
BIRTHDAY OF THE LORD-that is the Moon." The Lord Moon was the great object of 
Arabian worship, and that Lord Moon, according to them, was born on the 24th of December, 
which clearly shows that the birth which they celebrated had no necessary connection with the 
course of the sun. It is worthy of special note, too, that if Christmas-day among the ancient 
Saxons of this island, was observed to celebrate the birth of any Lord of the host of heaven, the 
case must have been precisely the same here as it was in Arabia. The Saxons, as is well known, 
regarded the Sun as a female divinity, and the Moon as a male. * 


* SHARON TURNER. Turner cites an Arabic poem which proves that a female 
sun and a masculine moon were recognised in Arabia as well as by the Anglo- 

It must have been the birth- day of the Lord Moon, therefore, and not of the Sun, that was 
celebrated by them on the 25th of December, even as the birth- day of the same Lord Moon was 
observed by the Arabians on the 24th of December. The name of the Lord Moon in the East 
seems to have been Meni, for this appears the most natural interpretation of the Divine statement 
in Isaiah lxv. 11, "But ye are they that forsake my holy mountain, that prepare a temple for Gad, 
and that furnish the drink-offering unto Meni." There is reason to believe that Gad refers to the 
sun- god, and that Meni in like manner designates the moon- divinity. * 

*See KITTO, vol. iv. p. 66, end of Note. The name Gad evidently refers, in the 
first instance, to the war- god, for it signifies to assault; but it also signifies "the 
assembler"; and under both ideas it is applicable to Nimrod, whose general 
character was that of the sun- god, for he was the first grand warrior; and, under 
the name Phoroneus, he was celebrated for having first gathered mankind into 
social communities. The name Meni, "the numberer," on the other hand, seems 
just a synonym for the name of Cush or Chus, which, while it signifies "to cover" 
or "hide," signifies also "to count or number." The true proper meaning of the 
name Cush is, I have no doubt, "The numberer" or "Arithmetician"; for while 
Nimrod his son, as the 'hiighty" one, was the grand propagator of the Babylonian 
system of idolatry, by force and power, he, as Hermes, was the real concocter of 
that system, for he is said to have "taught men the proper mode of approaching 
the Deity with prayers and sacrifice" (WILKINSON); and seeing idolatry and 
astronomy were intimately combined, to enable him to do so with effect, it was 
indispensable that he should be pre-eminently skilled in the science of numbers. 
Now, Hermes (that is Cush) is said to have "first discovered numbers, and the art 
of reckoning, geometry, and astronomy, the games of chess and hazard" (Ibid.); 
and it is in all probability from reference to the meaning of the name of Cush, that 
some called "NUMBER the father of gods and men" (Ibid.). The name Meni is 
just the Chaldee form of the Hebrew "Mene," the "numberer" for in Chaldee i 
often takes the place of the final e. As we have seen reason to conclude with 
Gesenius, that Nebo, the great prophetic god of Babylon, was just the same god as 
Hermes, this shows the peculiar emphasis of the first words in the Divine sentence 
that sealed the doom of Belshazzar, as representing the primeval god- -"MENE, 
MENE, Tekel, Upharsin, " which is as much as covertly to say, "The numberer is 
numbered." As the cup was peculiarly the symbol of Cush, hence the pouring out 
of the drink-offering to him as the god of the cup; and as he was the great Diviner, 
hence the divinations as to the future year, which Jerome connects with the 
divinity referred to by Isaiah. Now Hermes, in Egypt as the "numberer," was 
identified with the moon that numbers the months. He was called "Lord of the 
moon" (BUNSEN); and as the "dispenser of time" (WILKINSON), he held a 
"palm branch, emblematic of a year" (Ibid.). Thus, then, if Gad was the "sun- 
divinity," Meni was very naturally regarded as "The Lord Moon." 

Meni, or Manai, signifies "The Numberer." And it is by the changes of the moon that the months 
are numbered: Psalm civ. 19, "He appointed the moon for seasons: the sun knoweth the time of 


its going down." The name of the "Man of the Moon," or the god who presided over that 
luminary among the Saxons, was Mane, as given in the "Edda," and Mani, in the "Voluspa." That 
it was the birth of the "Lord Moon" that was celebrated among our ancestors at Christmas, we 
have remarkable evidence in the name that is still given in the lowlands of Scotland to the feast 
on the last day of the year, which seems to be a remnant of the old birth festival for the cakes 
then made are called Nur-Cakes, or Birth-cakes. That name is Hogmanay. Now, "Hog-Manai" in 
Chaldee signifies "The feast of the Numberer"; in other words, the festival of Deus Lunus, or of 
the Man of the Moon. To show the connection between country and country, and the inveterate 
endurance of old customs, it is worthy of remark, that Jerome, commenting on the very words of 
Isaiah already quoted, about spreading "a table for Gad," and "pouring out a drink-offering to 
Meni," observes that it "was the custom so late as his time [in the fourth century], in all cities 
especially in Egypt and at Alexandria, to set tables, and furnish them with various luxurious 
articles of food, and with goblets containing a mixture of new wine, on the last day of the month 
and the year, and that the people drew omens from them in respect of the fruitfulness of the 
year." The Egyptian year began at a different time from ours; but this is a near as possible (only 
substituting whisky for wine), the way in which Hogmanay is still observed on the last day of the 
last month of our year in Scotland. I do not know that any omens are drawn from anything that 
takes place at that time, but everybody in the south of Scotland is personally cognisant of the 
fact, that, on Hogmanay, or the evening before New Year's day, among those who observe old 
customs, a table is spread, and that while buns and other dainties are provided by those who can 
afford them, oat cakes and cheese are brought forth among those who never see oat cakes but on 
this occasion, and that strong drink forms an essential article of the provision. 

Even where the sun was the favourite object of worship, as in Babylon itself and elsewhere, at 
this festival he was worshipped not merely as the orb of day, but as God incarnate. It was an 
essential principle of the Babylonian system, that the Sun or Baal was the one only God. When, 
therefore, Tammuz was worshipped as God incarnate, that implied also that he was an 
incarnation of the Sun. In the Hindoo Mythology, which is admitted to be essentially 
Babylonian, this comes out very distinctly. There, Surya, or the sun, is represented as being 
incarnate, and born for the purpose of subduing the enemies of the gods, who, without such a 
birth, could not have been subdued. * 

* See the Sanscrit Researches of Col. VANS KENNEDY. Col. K., a most 
distinguished Sanscrit scholar, brings the Brahmins from Babylon (Ibid.). Be it 
observed the very name Surya, given to the sun over all India, is connected with 
this birth. Though the word had originally a different meaning, it was evidently 
identified by the priests with the Chaldee "Zero," and made to countenance the 
idea of the birth of the "Sun-god." The Pracrit name is still nearer the Scriptural 
name of the promised "seed." It is "Suro." It has been seen, in a previous chapter, 
that in Egypt also the Sun was represented as born of a goddess. 

It was no mere astronomic festival, then, that the Pagans celebrated at the winter solstice. That 
festival at Rome was called the feast of Saturn, and the mode in which it was celebrated there, 
showed whence it had been derived. The feast, as regulated by Caligula, lasted five days; * loose 
reins were given to drunkenness and revelry, slaves had a temporary emancipation, ** and teed 
all manner of freedoms with their masters. 

* Subsequently the number of the days of the Saturnalia was increased to seven. 


** If Saturn, or Kronos, was, as we have seen reason to believe, Phoroneus, "The 
emancipator," the "temporary emancipation" of the slaves at his festival was 
exactly in keeping with his supposed character. 

This was precisely the way in which, according to Berosus, the drunken festival of the month 
Thebeth, answering to our December, in other words, the festival of Bacchus, was celebrated in 
Babylon. "It was the custom," says he, "during the five days it lasted, for masters to be in 
subjection to their servants, and one of them ruled the house, clothed in a purple garment like a 
king." This "purple-robed" servant was called "Zoganes," the "Man of sport and wantonness," 
and answered exactly to the "Lord of Misrule," that in the dark ages, was chosen in all Popish 
countries to head the revels of Christmas. The wassailling bowl of Christmas had its precise 
counterpart in the "Drunken festival" of Babylon; and many of the other observances still kept up 
among ourselves at Christmas came from the very same quarter. The candles, in some parts of 
England, lighted on Christmas-eve, and used so long as the festive season lasts, were equally 
lighted by the Pagans on the eve of the festival of the Babylonian god, to do honour to him: for it 
was one of the distinguishing peculiarities of his worship to have lighted wax- candles on his 
altars. The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in Pagan Rome and 
Pagan Egypt. In Egypt that tree was the palm-tree; in Rome it was the fir; the palm-tree denoting 
the Pagan Messiah, as Baal-Tamar, the fir referring to him as Baal-Berith. The mother of Adonis, 
the Sun-God and great mediatorial divinity, was mystically said to have been changed into a tree, 
and when in that state to have brought forth her divine son. If the mother was a tree, the son must 
have been recognised as the "Man the branch." And this entirely accounts for the putting of the 
Yule Log into the fire on Christmas-eve, and the appearance of the Christmas-tree the next 
morning. As Zero-Ashta, "The seed of the woman," which name also signified Ignigena, or 
"born of the fire," he has to enter the fire on "Mother- night," that he may be born the next day 
out of it, as the "Branch of God," or the Tree that brings all divine gifts to men. But why, it may 
be asked, does he enter the fire under the symbol of a Log? To understand this, it must be 
remembered that the divine child born at the winter solstice was born as a new incarnation of the 
great god (after that god had been cut in pieces), on purpose to revenge his death upon his 
murderers. Now the great god, cut off in the midst of his power and glory, was symbolised as a 
huge tree, stripped of all its branches, and cut down almost to the ground. But the great serpent, 
the symbol of the life restoring Aesculapius, twists itself around the dead stock (see Fig. 27 ), and 
lo, at its side up sprouts a young tree--a tree of an entirely different kind, that is destined never to 
be cut down by hostile power--even the palm-tree, the well-known symbol of victory. The 
Christmas-tree, as has been stated, was generally at Rome a different tree, even the fir; but the 
very same idea as was implied in the palm-tree was implied in the Christmas- fir; for that covertly 
symbolised the new-born God as Baal-berith, * "Lord of the Covenant," and thus shadowed forth 
the perpetuity and everlasting nature of his power, not that after having fallen before his enemies, 
he had risen triumphant over them all. 

* Baal-bereth, which differs only in one letter from Baal-berith, "Lord of the 
Covenant," signifies "Lord of the fir-tree." 


rig. it. 

Fig. 27: The Yule Log 

From MAURICE'S Indian Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 368. 

Therefore, the 25th of December, the day that was observed at Rome as the day when the 
victorious god reappeared on earth, was held at the Natalis invicti solis, "The birth-day of the 
unconquered Sun." Now the Yule Log is the dead stock of Nimrod, deified as the sun- god, but 
cut down by his enemies; the Christmas-tree is Nimrod redivivus— the slain god come to life 
again. In the light reflected by the above statement on customs that still linger among us, the 
origin of which has been lost in the midst of hoar antiquity, let the reader look at the singular 
practice still kept up in the South on Christmas-eve, of kissing under the mistletoe bough. That 
mistletoe bough in the Druidic superstition, which, as we have seen, was derived from Babylon, 
was a representation of the Messiah, "The man the branch." The mistletoe was regarded as a 
divine branch *--a branch that came from heaven, and grew upon a tree that sprung out of the 

* In the Scandinavian story of Balder, the mistletoe branch is distinguished from 
the lamented god. The Druidic and Scandinavian myths somewhat differed; but 
yet, even in the Scandinavian story, it is evident that some marvellous power was 
attributed to the mistletoe branch; for it was able to do what nothing else in the 
compass of creation could accomplish; it slew the divinity on whom the Anglo- 
Saxons regarded "the empire" of their "heaven" as "depending." Now, all that is 
neceesary to unravel this apparent inconsistency, is just to understand "the 
branch" that had such power, as a symbolical expression for the true Messiah. The 
Bacchus of the Greeks came evidently to be recognised as the "seed of the 
serpent"; for he is said to have been brought forth by his mother in consequence 
of intercourse with Jupiter, when that god had appeared in the form of a serpent. 
If the character of Balder was the same, the story of his death just amounted to 
this, that the "seed of the serpent" had been slain by the "seed of the woman." 
This story, of course, must have originated with his enemies. But the idolators 
took up what they could not altogether deny, evidently with the view of 
explaining it away. 

Thus by the engrafting of the celestial branch into the earthly tree, heaven and earth, that sin had 
severed, were joined together, and thus the mistletoe bough became the token of Divine 


reconciliation to man, the kiss being the well-known token of pardon and reconciliation. Whence 
could such an idea have come? May it not have come from the eighty- fifth Psalm, ver. 10,11, 
"Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have KISSED each other. Truth shall 
spring out of the earth [in consequence of the coming of the promised Saviour], and 
righteousness shall look down from heaven"? Certain it is that that Psalm was written soon after 
the Babylonish captivity; and as multitudes of the Jews, after that event, still remained in 
Babylon under the guidance of inspired men, such as Daniel, as a part of the Divine word it must 
have been communicated to them, as well as to their kinsmen in Palestine. Babylon was, at that 
time, the centre of the civilised world; and thus Paganism, corrupting the Divine symbol as it 
ever has done, had opportunities of sending forth its debased counterfeit of the truth to all the 
ends of the earth, through the Mysteries that were affiliated with the great central system in 
Babylon. Thus the very customs of Christmas still existent cast surprising light at once on the 
revelations of grace made to all the earth, and the efforts made by Satan and his emissaries to 
materialise, carnalise, and degrade them. 

Fig. 28: Roman Emperor Trajan burning Incense to Diana 

From KITTO's Illustrated Commentary, vol. iv. p. 137. 

In many countries the boar was sacrificed to the god, for the injury a boar was fabled to have 
done him. According to one version of the story of the death of Adonis, or Tammuz, it was, as 
we have seen, in consequence of a wound from the tusk of a boar that he died. The Phrygian 
Attes, the beloved of Cybele, whose story was identified with that of Adonis, was fabled to have 
perished in like manner, by the tusk of a boar. Therefore, Diana, who though commonly 
represented in popular myths only as the huntress Diana, was in reality the great mother of the 
gods, has frequently the boar's head as her accompaniment, in token not of any mere success in 
the chase, but of her triumph over the grand enemy of the idolatrous system, in which she 
occupied so conspicuous a place. According to Theocritus, Venus was reconciled to the boar that 
killed Adonis, because when brought in chains before her, it pleaded so pathetically that it had 
not killed her husband of malice prepense, but only through accident. But yet, in memory of the 


deed that the mystic boar had done, many a boar lost its head or was offered in sacrifice to the 
offended goddess. In Smith, Diana is represented with a boar's head lying beside her, on the top 
of a heap of stones, * and in the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 28 ), in which the Roman Emperor 
Trajan is represented burning incense to the same goddess, the boar's head forms a very 
prominent figure. On Christmas-day the Continental Saxons offered a boar in sacrifice to the 
Sun, to propitiate her ** for the loss of her beloved Adonis. 

* SMITH'S Class. Diet., p. 112. 

** The reader will remember the Sun was a goddess. Mallet says, "They offered 
the largest hog they could get to Frigga"--i.e., the mother of Balder the lamented 
one. In Egypt swine were offered once a year, at the feast of the Moon, to the 
Moon, and Bacchus or Osiris; and to them only it was lawful to make such an 
offering. (AELIAN) 

In Rome a similar observance had evidently existed; for a boar formed the great article at the 
feast of Saturn, as appears from the following words of Martial:- - 

"That boar will make you a good Saturnalia." 

Fig. i». 

Th« EeyptlftS Oofl Sub, with his symbol th« goose; ud U» 

Sacred [loose on a atari d, as ortererf tu sacrifice.} 

Fig. 29: Egyptian God Seb, and Symbolic Goose 

From WILKINSON, vol. vi. plate 3 1 ; and goose on stand, 
from the same, vol. vi. p. 353. 

Hence the boar's head is still a standing dish in England at the Christmas dinner, when the reason 
of it is long since forgotten. Yea, the "Christmas goose" and "Yule cakes" were essential articles 
in the worship of the Babylonian Messiah, as that worship was practised both in Egypt and at 
Rome ( Fig. 29 ). Wilkinson, in reference to Egypt, shows that "the favourite offering" of Osiris 
was "a goose," and moreover, that the "goose could not be eaten except in the depth of winter." 


As to Rome, Juvenal says, "that Osiris, if offended, could be pacified only by a large goose and a 
thin cake." In many countries we have evidence of a sacred character attached to the goose. It is 
well known that the capitol of Rome was on one occasion saved when on the point of being 
surprised by the Gauls in the dead of night, by the cackling of the geese sacred to Juno, kept in 
the temple of Jupiter. The accompanying woodcut ( Fig. 30) proves that the goose in Asia Minor 
was the symbol of Cupid, just as it was the symbol of Seb in Egypt. In India, the goose occupied 
a similar position; for in that land we read of the sacred "Brahmany goose," or goose sacred to 
Brahma. Finally, the monuments of Babylon show that the goose possessed a like mystic 
character in Chaldea, and that it was offered in sacrifice there, as well as in Rome or Egypt, for 
there the priest is seen with the goose in the one hand, and his sacrificing knife in the other. * 

* The symbolic meaning of the offering of the goose is worthy of notice. "The 
goose," says Wilkinson, "signified in hieroglyphics a child or son"; and Horapolo 
says, "It was chosen to denote a son, from its love to its young, being always 
ready to give itself up to the chasseur, in order that they might be preserved; for 
which reason the Egyptians thought it right to revere this animal." 
(WILKINSON'S Egyptians) Here, then, the true meaning of the symbol is a son, 
who voluntarily gives himself up as a sacrifice for those whom he loves- -viz., the 
Pagan Messiah. 

Fig. 30: The Goose of Cupid 

From BARKER and AINS WORTH'S Lares and Penates ofCilicia, chap. iv. p. 220. 

There can be no doubt, then, that the Pagan festival at the winter solstice--in other words, 
Christmas--was held in honour of the birth of the Babylonian Messiah. 

The consideration of the next great festival in the Popish calendar gives the very strongest 
confirmation to what has now been said. That festival, called Lady-day, is celebrated at Rome on 
the 25th of March, in alleged commemoration of the miraculous conception of our Lord in the 
womb of the Virgin, on the day when the angel was sent to announce to her the distinguished 
honour that was to be bestowed upon her as the mother of the Messiah. But who could tell when 
this annunciation was made? The Scripture gives no clue at all in regard to the time. But it 


mattered not. But our Lord was either conceived or born, that very day now set down in the 
Popish calendar for the "Annunciation of the Virgin" was observed in Pagan Rome in honour of 
Cybele, the Mother of the Babylonian Messiah. * 

* AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, and MACROB., Sat. The fact stated in the 
paragraph above casts light on a festival held in Egypt, of which no satisfactory 
account has yet been given. That festival was held in commemoration of "the 
entrance of Osiris into the moon." Now, Osiris, like Surya in India, was just the 
Sun. (PLUTARCH, De hide et Osiride) The moon, on the other hand, though 
most frequently the symbol of the god Hermes or Thoth, was also the symbol of 
the goddess Isis, the queen of heaven. The learned Bunsen seems to dispute this; 
but his own admissions show that he does so without reason. And Jeremiah 44:17 
seems decisive on the subject. The entrance of Osiris into the moon, then, was just 
the sun's being conceived by Isis, the queen of heaven, that, like the Indian Surya, 
he might in due time be born as the grand deliverer. Hence the very name Osiris; 
for, as Isis is the Greek form of H'isha, "the woman," so Osiris, as read at this day 
on the Egyptian monuments, is He-siri, "the seed." It is no objection to this to say 
that Osiris is commonly represented as the husband of Isis; for, as we have seen 
already, Osiris is at once the son and husband of his mother. Now, this festival 
took place in Egypt generally in March, just as Lady-day, or the first great festival 
of Cybele, was held in the same month h Pagan Rome. We have seen that the 
common title of Cybele at Rome was Domina, or "the lady" (OVID, Fasti), as in 
Babylon it was Beltis (EUSEB. Praep. Evang.), and from this, no doubt, comes 
the name "Lady- day" as it has descended to us. 

Now, it is manifest that Lady-day and Christmas-day stand in intimate relation to one another. 
Between the 25th of March and the 25th of December there are exactly nine months. If, then, the 
false Messiah was conceived in March and born in December, can any one for a moment believe 
that the conception and birth of the true Messiah can have so exactly synchronised, not only to 
the month, but to the day? The thing is incredible. Lady-day and Christmas-day, then, are purely 

Section II 

Then look at Easter. What means the term Easter itself? It is not a Christian name. It bears its 
Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of 
Beltis, the queen of heaven, whose name, as pronounced by the people Nineveh, was evidently 
identical with that now in common use in this country. That name, as found by Layard on the 
Assyrian monuments, is Ishtar. The worship of Bel and Astarte was very early introduced into 
Britain, along with the Druids, "the priests of the groves." Some have imagined that the Druidical 
worship was first introduced by the Phoenicians, who, centuries before the Christian era, traded 
to the tin- mines of Cornwall. But the unequivocal traces of that worship are found in regions of 
the British islands where the Phoenicians never penetrated, and it has everywhere left indelible 
marks of the strong hold which it must have had on the early British mind. From Bel, the 1st of 
May is still called Beltane in the Almanac; and we have customs still lingering at this day among 
us, which prove how exactly the worship of Bel or Moloch (for both titles belonged to the same 


god) had been observed even in the northern parts of this island. "The late Lady Baird, of Fern 
Tower, in Perthshire," says a writer in "Notes and Queries," thoroughly versed in British 
antiquities, "told me, that every year, at Beltane (or the 1st of May), a number of men and 
women assemble at an ancient Druidical circle of stones on her property near Crieff. They light a 
fire in the centre, each person puts a bit of oat-cake in a shepherd's bonnet; they all sit down, and 
draw blindfold a piece from the bonnet. One piece has been previously blackened, and whoever 
gets that piece has to jump through the fire in the centre of the circle, and pay a forfeit. This is, in 
fact, a part of the ancient worship of Baal, and the person on whom the lot fell was previously 
burnt as a sacrifice. Now, the passing through the fire represents that, and the payment of the 
forfeit redeems the victim." If Baal was thus worshipped in Britain, it will not be difficult to 
believe that his consort Astarte was also adored by our ancestors, and that from Astarte, whose 
name in Nineveh was Ishtar, the religious solemnities of April, as now practised, are called by 
the name of Easter- -that month, among our Pagan ancestors, having been called Easter- monath. 
The festival, of which we read in Church history, under the name of Easter, in the third or fourth 
centuries, was quite a different festival from that now observed in the Romish Church, and at 
that time was not known by any such name as Easter. It was called Pasch, or the Passover, and 
though not of Apostolic institution, * was very early observed by many professing Christians, in 
commemoration of the death and resurrection of Christ. 

* Socrates, the ancient ecclesiastical historian, after a lengthened account of the 
different ways in which Easter was observed in different countries in his time-- 
i.e., the fifth century--sums up in these words: "Thus much already laid down may 
seem a sufficient treatise to prove that the celebration of the feast of Easter began 
everywhere more of custom than by any commandment either of Christ or any 
Apostle." (Hist. Ecclesiast .) Every one knows that the name "Easter," used in our 
translation of Acts 12:4, refers not to any Christian festival, but to the Jewish 
Passover. This is one of the few places in our version where the translators show 
an undue bias. 

That festival agreed originally with the time of the Jewish Passover, when Christ was crucified, a 
period which, in the days of Tertullian, at the end of the second century, was believed to have 
been the 23rd of March. That festival was not idolatrous, and it was preceded by no Lent. "It 
ought to be known," said Cassianus, the monk of Marseilles, writing in the fifth century, and 
contrasting the primitive Church with the Church in his day, "that the observance of the forty 
days had no existence, so long as the perfection of that primitive Church remained inviolate." 
Whence, then, came this observance? The forty days' abstinence of Lent was directly borrowed 
from the worshippers of the Babylonian goddess. Such a Lent of forty days, "in the spring of the 
year," is still observed by the Yezidis or Pagan Devil- worshippers of Koordistan, who have 
inherited it from their early masters, the Babylonians. Such a Lent of forty days was held in 
spring by the Pagan Mexicans, for thus we read in Humboldt, where he gives account of 
Mexican observances: "Three days after the vernal equinox... began a solemn fast of forty days in 
honour of the sun." Such a Lent of forty days was observed in Egypt, as may be seen on 
consulting Wilkinson's Egyptians. This Egyptian Lent of forty days, we are informed by 
Landseer, in his Sabean Researches, was held expressly in commemoration of Adonis or Osiris, 
the great mediatorial god. At the same time, the rape of Proserpine seems to have been 
commemorated, and in a similar manner; for Julius Firmicus informs us that, for "forty nights" 
the "wailing for Proserpine" continued; and from Arnobius we learn that the fast which the 
Pagans observed, called "Castus" or the "sacred" fast, was, by the Christians in his time, believed 


to have been primarily in imitation of the long fast of Ceres, when for many days she 
determinedly refused to eat on account of her "excess of sorrow," that is, on account of the loss 
of her daughter Proserpine, when carried away by Pluto, the god of hell. As the stories of 
Bacchus, or Adonis and Proserpine, though originally distinct, were made to join on and fit in to 
one another, so that Bacchus was called Liber, and his wife Ariadne, Libera (which was one of 
the names of Proserpine), it is highly probable that the forty days' fast of Lent was made in later 
times to have reference to both. Among the Pagans this Lent seems to have been an 
indispensable preliminary to the great annual festival in commemoration of the death and 
resurrection of Tammuz, which was celebrated by alternate weeping and rejoicing, and which, in 
many countries, was considerably later than the Christian festival, being observed in Palestine 
and Assyria in June, therefore called the "month of Tammuz"; in Egypt, about the middle of 
May, and in Britain, some time in April. To conciliate the Pagans to nominal Christianity, Rome, 
pursuing its usual policy, took measures to get the Christian and Pagan festivals amalgamated, 
and, by a complicated but skilful adjustment of the calendar, it was found no difficult matter, in 
general, to get Paganism and Christianity- -now far sunk in idolatry- -in this as in so many other 
things, to shake hands. The instrument in accomplishing this amalgamation was the abbot 
Dionysius the Little, to whom also we owe it, as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that 
the date of the Christian era, or of the birth of Christ Himself, was moved FOUR YEARS from 
the true time. Whether this was done through ignorance or design may be matter of question; but 
there seems to be no doubt of the fact, that the birth of the Lord Jesus was made full four years 
later than the truth. This change of the calendar in regard to Easter was attended with momentous 
consequences. It brought into the Church the grossest corruption and the rankest superstition in 
connection with the abstinence of Lent. Let any one only read the atrocities that were 
commemorated during the "sacred fast" or Pagan Lent, as described by Arnobius and Clemens 
Alexandrinus, and surely he must blush for the Christianity of those who, with the full 
knowledge of all these abominations, "went down to Egypt for help" to stir up the languid 
devotion of the degenerate Church, and who could find no more excellent way to "revive" it, 
than by borrowing from so polluted a source; the absurdities and abominations connected with 
which the early Christian writers had held up to scorn. That Christians should ever think of 
introducing the Pagan abstinence of Lent was a sign of evil; it showed how low they had sunk, 
and it was also a cause of evil; it inevitably led to deeper degradation. Originally, even in Rome, 
Lent, with the preceding revelries of the Carnival, was entirely unknown; and even when fasting 
before the Christian Pasch was held to be necessary, it was by slow steps that, in this respect, t 
came to conform with the ritual of Paganism. What may have been the period of fasting in the 
Roman Church before sitting of the Nicene Council does not very clearly appear, but for a 
considerable period after that Council, we have distinct evidence that it did not exceed three 
weeks. * 

* GIESELER, speaking of the Eastern Church in the second century, in regard to 
Paschal observances, says: "In it [the Paschal festival in commemoration of the 
death of Christ] they [the Eastern Christians] eat unleavened bread, probably like 
the Jews, eight days throughout... There is no trace of a yearly festival of a 
resurrection among them, for this was kept every Sunday" (Catholic Church). In 
regard to the Western Church, at a somewhat later period- -the age of Constantine- 
-fifteen days seems to have been observed to religious exercises in connection 
with the Christian Paschal feast, as appears from the following extracts from 
Bingham, kindly furnished to me by a friend, although the period of fasting is not 


stated. Bingham (Origin) says: "The solemnities of Pasch [are] the week before 
and the week after Easter Sunday--one week of the Cross, the other of the 
resurrection. The ancients speak of the Passion and Resurrection Pasch as a 
fifteen days' solemnity. Fifteen days was enforced by law by the Empire, and 
commanded to the universal Church... Scaliger mentions a law of Constantine, 
ordering two weeks for Easter, and a vacation of all legal processes." 

The words of Socrates, writing on this very subject, about AD 450, are these: "Those who inhabit 
the princely city of Rome fast together before Easter three weeks, excepting the Saturday and 
Lord's-day." But at last, when the worship of Astarte was rising into the ascendant, steps were 
taken to get the whole Chaldean Lent of six weeks, or forty days, made imperative on all within 
the Roman empire of the West. The way was prepared for this by a Council held at Aurelia in the 
time of Hormisdas, Bishop of Rome, about the year 519, which decreed that Lent should be 
solemnly kept before Easter. It was with the view, no doubt, of carrying out this decree that the 
calendar was, a few days after, readjusted by Dionysius. This decree could not be carried out all 
at once. About the end of the sixth century, the first decisive attempt was made to enforce the 
observance of the new calendar. It was in Britain that the first attempt was made in this way; and 
here the attempt met with vigorous resistance. The difference, in point of time, betwixt the 
Christian Pasch, as observed in Britain by the native Christians, and the Pagan Easter enforced 
by Rome, at the time of its enforcement, was a whole month; * and it was only by violence and 
bloodshed, at last, that the Festival of the Anglo-Saxon or Chaldean goddess came to supersede 
that which had been held in honour of Christ. 

* CUMMIANUS, quoted by Archbishop USSHER, Sylloge Those who have been 
brought up in the observance of Christmas and Easter, and who yet abhor from 
their hearts all Papal and Pagan idolatry alike, may perhaps feel as if there were 
something "untoward" in the revelations given above in regard to the origin of 
these festivals. But a moment's reflection will suffice entirely to banish such a 
feeling. They will see, that if the account I have given be true, it is of no use to 
ignore it. A few of the facts stated in these pages are already known to Infidel and 
Socinian writers of no mean mark, both in this country and on the Continent, and 
these are using them in such a way as to undermine the faith of the young and 
uninformed in regard to the very vitals of the Christian faith. Surely, then, it must 
be of the last consequence, that the truth should be set forth in its own native light, 
even though it may somewhat run counter to preconceived opinions, especially 
when that truth, justly considered, tends so much at once to strengthen the rising 
youth against the seductions of Popery, and to confirm them in the faith once 
delivered to the Saints. If a heathen could say, "Socrates I love, and Plato I love, 
but I love truth more," surely a truly Christian mind will not display less 
magnanimity. Is there not much, even in the aspect of the times, that ought to 
prompt the earnest inquiry, if the occasion has not arisen, when efforts, and 
strenuous efforts, should be made to purge out of the National Establishment in 
the south those observances, and everything else that has flowed in upon it from 
Babylon's golden cup? There are men of noble minds in the Church of Cranmer, 
Latimer, and Ridley, who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, who have felt 
the power of His blood, and known the comfort of His Spirit. Let them, in their 
closets, and on their knees, ask the question, at their God and at their own 
consciences, if they ought not to bestir themselves in right earnest, and labour 


with all their might till such a consummation be effected. Then, indeed, would 
England's Church be the grand bulwark of the Reformation- -then would her sons 
speak with her enemies in the gate- -then would she appear in the face of all 
Christendom, "clear as the sun, fair as the moon, and terrible as an army with 
banners." If, however, nothing effectual shall be done to stay the plague that is 
spreading in her, the result must be disastrous, not only to herself, but to the 
whole empire. 

Such is the history of Easter. The popular observances that still attend the period of its 
celebration amply confirm the testimony of history as to its Babylonian character. The hot cross 
buns of Good Friday, and the dyed eggs of Pasch or Easter Sunday, figured in the Chaldean rites 
just as they do now. The "buns," known too by that identical name, were used in the worship of 
the queen of heaven, the goddess Easter, as early as the days of Cecrops, the founder of Athens-- 
that is, 1500 years before the Christian era. "One species of sacred bread," says Bryant, "which 
used to be offered to the gods, was of great antiquity, and called Boun." Diogenes Laertius, 
speaking of this offering being made by Empedocles, describes the chief ingredients of which it 
was composed, saying, "He offered one of the sacred cakes called Boun, which was made of fine 
flour and honey." The prophet Jeremiah takes notice of this kind of offering when he says, "The 
children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make 
cakes to the queen of heaven." * 

* Jeremiah 7:18. It is from the very word here used by the prophet that the word 
"bun" seems to be derived. The Hebrew word, with the points, was pronounced 
Khavan, which in Greek became sometimes Kapan-os (PHOTIUS, Lexicon 
Syttoge); and, at other times, Khabon (NEANDER, in KITTO'S Biblical 
Cyclopoedia). The first shows how Khvan, pronounced as one syllable, would 
pass into the Latin panis, "bread," and the second how, in like manner, Khvon 
would become Bon or Bun. It is not to be overlooked that our common English 
word Loa has passed through a similar process of formation. In Anglo-Saxon it 
was Hlaf. 

The hot cross buns are not now offered, but eaten, on the festival of Astarte; but this leaves no 
doubt as to whence they have been derived. The origin of the Pasch eggs is just as clear. The 
ancient Druids bore an egg, as the sacred emblem of their order. In the Dionysiaca, or mysteries 
of Bacchus, as celebrated in Athens, one part of the nocturnal ceremony consisted in the 
consecration of an egg. The Hindoo fables celebrate their mundane egg as of a golden colour. 
The people of Japan make their sacred egg to have been brazen. In China, at this hour, dyed or 
painted eggs are used on sacred festivals, even as in this country. In ancient times eggs were used 
in the religious rites of the Egyptians and the Greeks, and were hung up for mystic purposes in 
their temples. (Fig. 31) . From Egypt these sacred eggs can be distinctly traced to the banks of the 
Euphrates. The classic poets are full of the fable of the mystic egg of the Babylonians; and thus 
its tale is told by Hyginus, the Egyptian, the learned keeper of the Palatine library at Rome, in the 
time of Augustus, who was skilled in all the wisdom of his native country: "An egg of wondrous 
size is said to have fallen from heaven into the river Euphrates. The fishes rolled it to the bank, 
where the doves having settled upon it, and hatched it, out came Venus, who afterwards was 
called the Syrian Goddess"--that is, Astarte. Hence the egg became one of the symbols of Astarte 
or Easter; and accordingly, in Cyprus, one of the chosen seats of the worship of Venus, or 
Astarte, the egg of wondrous size was represented on a grand scale, ( see Fig. 32) 


lie. *l 


B*cr«d Egg cf Heliopolis; and fyphoa's Egg. .iTom BllTAilf 8 
H yttiology, voL iii. p. 62. 

Fig. 31: Sacred Egg of Heliopolis, and Typhon's Egg 

From BRYANT'S Mythology, vol. iii. p. 62 

Fig. 32: Mystic Egg of Astarte 

From LANDSEER's Sabean Researches, p. 80. London, 1823. 

The occult meaning of this mystic egg of Astarte, in one of its aspects (for it had a twofold 
significance), had reference to the ark during the time of the flood, in which the whole human 
race were shut up, as the chick is enclosed in the egg before it is hatched. If any be inclined to 
ask, how could it ever enter the minds of men to employ such an extraordinary symbol for such a 
purpose, the answer is, first, The sacred egg of Paganism, as already indicated, is well known as 
the "mundane egg," that is, the egg in which the world was shut up. Now the world has two 
distinct meanings--it means either the material earth, or the inhabitants of the earth. The latter 
meaning of the term is seen in Genesis 11:1, "The whole earth was of one language and of one 
speech," where the meaning is that the whole people of the world were so. If then the world is 
seen shut up in an egg, and floating on the waters, it may not be difficult to believe, however the 


idea of the egg may have come, that the egg thus floating on the wide universal sea might be 
Noah's family that contained the whole world in its bosom. Then the application of the word egg 
to the ark comes thus: The Hebrew name for an egg is Baitz, or in the feminine (for there are 
both genders), Baitza. This, in Chaldee and Phoenician, becomes Baith or Baitha, which in these 
languages is also the usual way in which the name of a house is pronounced. * 

* The common word "Beth," "house," in the Bible without the points, is "Baith," 
as may be seen in the name of Bethel, as given in Genesis 35:1, of the Greek 
Septuagint, where it is "Baith-el." 

The egg floating on the waters that contained the world, was the house floating on the waters of 
the deluge, with the elements of the new world in its bosom. The coming of the egg from heaven 
evidently refers to the preparation of the ark by express appointment of God; and the same thing 
seems clearly implied in the Egyptian story of the mundane egg which was said to have come out 
of the mouth of the great god. The doves resting on the egg need no explanation. This, then, was 
the meaning of the mystic egg in one aspect. As, however, everything that was good or beneficial 
to mankind was represented in the Chaldean mysteries, as in some way connected with the 
Babylonian goddess, so the greatest blessing to the human race, which the ark contained in its 
bosom, was held to be Astarte, who was the great civiliser and benefactor of the world. Though 
the deified queen, whom Astarte represented, had no actual existence till some centuries after the 
flood, yet through the doctrine of metempsychosis, which was firmly established in Babylon, it 
was easy for her worshippers to be made to believe that, in a previous incarnation, she had lived 
in the Antediluvian world, and passed in safety through the waters of the flood. Now the Romish 
Church adopted this mystic egg of Astarte, and consecrated it as a symbol of Christ's 
resurrection. A form of prayer was even appointed to be used in connection with it, Pope Paul V 
teaching his superstitious votaries thus to pray at Easter: "Bless, O Lord, we beseech thee, this 
thy creature of eggs, that it may become a wholesome sustenance unto thy servants, eating it in 
remembrance of our Lord Jesus Christ, &c" (Scottish Guardian, April, 1844). Besides the mystic 
egg, there was also another emblem of Easter, the goddess queen of Babylon, and that was the 
Rimmon or "pomegranate." With the Rimmon or "pomegranate" in her hand, she is frequently 
represented in ancient medals, and the house of Rimmon, in which the King of Damascus, the 
Master of Naaman, the Syrian, worshipped, was in all likelihood a temple of Astarte, where that 
goddess with the Rimmon was publicly adored. The pomegranate is a fruit that is full of seeds; 
and on that account it has been supposed that it was employed as an emblem of that vessel in 
which the germs of the new creation were preserved, wherewith the world was to be sown anew 
with man and with beast, when the desolation of the deluge had passed away. But upon more 
searching inquiry, it turns out that the Rimmon or "pomegranate" had reference to an entirely 
different thing. Astarte, or Cybele, was called also Idaia Mater, and the sacred mount in Phrygia, 
most famed for the celebration of her mysteries, was named Mount Ida--that is, in Chaldee, the 
sacred language of these mysteries, the Mount of Knowledge. "Idaia Mater," then, signifies "the 
Mother of Knowledge"-- m other words, our Mother Eve, who first coveted the Knowledge of 
good and evil," and actually purchased it at so dire a price to herself and to all her children. 
Astarte, as can be abundantly shown, was worshipped not only as an incarnation of the Spirit of 
God, but also of the mother of mankind. 10 When, therefore, the mother of the gods, and the 

The Meaning of the Name Astarte 

That Semiramis, under the name of Astarte, was worshipped not only as an incarnation of the Spirit of God, but as 
the mother of mankind, we have very clear and satisfactory evidence. There is no doubt that "the Syrian goddess" 


was Astarte (LA YARD'S Nineveh and its Remains). Now, the Assyrian goddess, or Astarte, is identified with 
Semiramis by Athenagoras (Legatio), and by Lucian (De Dea Syria). These testimonies in regard to Astarte, or the 
Syrian goddess, being, in one aspect, Semiramis, are quite decisive. 1. The name Astarte, as applied to her, has 
reference to her as being Rhea or Cybele, the tower-bearing goddess, the first as Ovid says (Opera), that " made 
(towers) in cities"; for we find from Layard that in the Syrian temple of Hierapolis, "she [Dea Syria or Astarte] was 
represented standing on a lion crowned with towers." Now, no name could more exactly picture forth the character 
of Semiramis, as queen of Babylon, than the name of "Ash-tart," for that just means "The woman that made towers." 
It is admitted on all hands that the last syllable "tart" comes from the Hebrew verb "Tr." It has been always taken for 
granted, however, that "Tr" signifies only "to go round." But we have evidence that, in nouns derived from it, it also 
signifies "to be round," "to surround," or "encompass." In the masculine, we find "Tor" used for "a border or row of 
jewels round the head" (see PARKHURST and also GESENIUS). And in the feminine, as given in Hesychius 
(Lexicon), we find the meaning much more decisively brought out. Turis is just the Greek form of Turit, the final t, 
according to the genius of the Greek language, being converted into s. Ash-turit, then, which is obviously the same 
as the Hebrew "Ashtoreth," is just "The woman that made the encompassing wall." Considering how commonly the 
glory of that achievement, as regards Babylon, was given to Semiramis, not only by Ovid, but by Justin, Dionysius, 
Afer, and others, both the name and mural crown on the head of that goddess were surely very appropriate. In 
confirmation of this interpretation of the meaning of the name Astarte, I may adduce an epithet applied to the Greek 
Diana, who at Ephesus bore a turreted crown on her head, and was identified with Semiramis, which is not a little 
striking. It is contained in the following extract from Livy: "When the news of the battle [near Pydna] reached 
Amphipolis, the matrons ran together to the temple of Diana, whom they style Tauropolos, to implore her aid." 
Tauropolos, from Tor, "a tower," or "surrounding fortification," and Pol, "to make," plainly means the "tower- 
maker," or "maker of surrounding fortifications"; and P53 to her as the goddess of fortifications, they would 
naturally apply when they dreaded an attack upon their city. 

Semiramis, being deified as Astarte, came to be raised to the highest honours; and her change into a dove, as has 
been already shown, was evidently intended, when the distinction of sex had been blasphemously attributed to the 
Godhead, to identify her, under the name of the Mother of the gods, with that Divine Spirit, without whose agency 
no one can be born a child of God, and whose emblem, in the symbolical language of Scripture, was the Dove, as 
that of the Messiah was the Lamb. Since the Spirit of God is the source of all wisdom, natural as well as spiritual, 
arts and inventions and skill of every kind being attributed to Him (Exo 31:3; 35:31), so the Mother of the gods, in 
whom that Spirit was feigned to be incarnate, was celebrated as the originator of some of the useful arts and sciences 
(DIODORUS SICULUS). Hence, also, the character attributed to the Grecian Minerva, whose name Athena, as we 
have seen reason to conclude, is only a synonym for Beltis, the well known name of the Assyrian goddess. Athena, 
the Minerva of Athens, is universally known as the "goddess of wisdom," the inventress of arts and sciences. 2. The 
name Astarte signifies also the "Maker of investigations"; and in this respect was applicable to Cybele or Semiramis, 
as symbolised by the Dove. That this is one of the meanings of the name Astarte may be seen from comparing it 
with the cognate names Asterie and Astraea (in Greek Astraia), which are formed by taking the last member o f the 
compound word in the masculine, instead of the feminine, Teri, or Tri (the latter being pronounced Trai or Trae), 
being the same in sense as Tart. Now, Asterie was the wife of Perseus, the Assyrian (HERODOTUS), and who was 
the founder of Mysteries (B R Y ANT) . As Asterie was further represented as the daughter of Bel, this implies a 
position similar to that of Semiramis. Astraea, again, was the goddess of justice, who is identified with the heavenly 
virgin Themis, the name Themis signifying "the perfect one," who gave oracles (OVID, Metam.), and who, having 
lived on earth before the Flood, forsook it just before that catastrophe came on. Themis and Astraea are sometimes 
distinguished and sometimes identified; but both have the same character as goddesses of justice. The explanation of 
the discrepancy obviously is, that the Spirit has sometimes been viewed as incarnate and sometimes not. When 
incarnate, Astraea is daughter of Themis. What name could more exactly agree with the character of a goddess of 
justice, than Ash-trai-a, "The maker of investigations," and what name could more appropriately shadow forth one 
of the characters of that Divine Spirit, who " searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God"? As Astraea, or 
Themis, was "Fatidica Themis," "Themis the prophetic," this also was another characteristic of the Spirit; for 
whence can any true oracle, or prophetic inspiration, come, but from the inspiring Spirit of God? Then, lastly, what 
can more exactly agree with the Divine statement in Genesis in regard to the Spirit of God, than the statement of 
Ovid, that Astraea was the last of the celestials who remained on earth, and that her forsaking it was the signal for 
the downpouring of the destroying deluge? The announcement of the coming Flood is in Scripture ushered in with 
these words (Gen 6:3): "And the Lord said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet 
his days shall be an hundred and twenty years." All these 120 years, the Spirit was striving; when they came to an 


mother of knowledge, was represented with the fruit of the pomegranate in her extended hand 
(see Fig. 33) , inviting those who ascended the sacred mount to initiation in her mysteries, can 
there be a doubt what that fruit was intended to signify? Evidently, it must accord with her 
assumed character; it must be the fruit of the "Tree of Knowledge "--the fruit of that very 

end, the Spirit strove no longer, forsook the earth, and left the world to its fate. But though the Spirit of God forsook 
the earth, it did not forsake the family of righteous Noah. It entered with the patriarch into the ark; and when that 
patriarch came forth from his long imprisonment, it came forth along with him. Thus the Pagans had an historical 
foundation for their myth of the dove resting on the symbol of the ark in the Babylonian waters, and the Syrian 
goddess, or Astarte-the same as Astraea— coming forth from it. Semiramis, then, as Astarte, worshipped as the dove, 
was regarded as the incarnation of the Spirit of God. 3. As Baal, Lord of Heaven, had his visible emblem, the sun, so 
she, as Beltis, Queen of Heaven, must have hers also-the moon, which in another sense was Asht-tart-e, "The maker 
of revolutions"; for there is no doubt that Tart very commonly signifies "going round." But, 4th, the whole system 
must be dovetailed together. As the mother of the gods was equally the mother of mankind, Semiramis, or Astarte, 
must also be identified with Eve; and the name Rhea, which, according to the Paschal Chronicle was given to her, 
sufficiently proves her identification with Eve. As applied to the common mother of the human race, the name 
Astarte is singularly appropriate; for, as she was Idaia mater, "The mother of knowledge," the question is, "How did 
she come by that knowledge?" To this the answer can only be: "by the fatal investigations she made." It was a 
tremendous experiment she made, when, in opposition to the Divine command, and in spite of the threatened 
penalty, she ventured to "search" into that forbidden knowledge which her Maker in his goodness had kept from her. 
Thus she took the lead in that unhappy course of which the Scripture speaks— "God made man upright, but they have 
SOUGHT out many inventions" (Eccl7:29). Now Semiramis, deified as the Dove, was Astarte in the most gracious 
and benignant form. Lucius Ampelius calls her "the goddess benignant and merciful to me" (bringing them) "to a 
good and happy life." In reference to this benignity of her character, both the titles, Aphrodite and Mylitta, are 
evidently attributed to her. The first I have elsewhere explained as "The wrath-subduer," and the second is in exact 
accordance with it. Mylitta, or, as it is in Greek, Mulitta, signifies "The Mediatrix." The Hebrew Melitz, which in 
Chaldee becomes Melitt, is evidently used in Job 33:23, in the sense of a Mediator; "the messenger, the interpreter" 
(Melitz), who is "gracious" to a man, and saith, "Deliver from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom," being 
really "The Messenger, the MEDIATOR." Parkhurst takes the word in this sense, and derives it from "Mltz," "to be 
sweet." Now, the feminine of Melitz is Melitza, from which comes Melissa, a "bee" (the sweetener, or producer of 
sweetness), and Melissa, a common name of the priestesses of Cybele, and as we may infer of Cybele, as Astarte, or 
Queen of Heaven, herself; for, after Porphyry, has stated that "the ancients called the priestesses of Demeter, 
Melissae," he adds, that they also "called the Moon Melissa." We have evidence, further, that goes far to identify 
this title as a title of Semiramis. Melissa or Melitta (APPOLODORUS)--for the name is given in both ways— is said 
to have been the mother of Phoroneus, the first that reigned, in whose days the dispersion of mankind occurred, 
divisions having come in among them, whereas before, all had been in harmony and spoke one language (Hyginus). 
There is no other to whom this can be applied but Nimrod; and as Nimrod came to be worshipped as Nin, the son of 
his own wife, the identification is exact. Melitta, then, the mother of Phoroneus, is the same as Mylitta, the well 
known name of the Babylonian Venus; and the name, as being the feminine of Melitz, the Mediator, consequently 
signifies the Mediatrix. Another name also given to the mother of Phoroneus, "the first that reigned," is Archia 
(LEMPRIERE; SMITH). Now Archia signifies "Spiritual' (from "Rkh," Heb. "Spirit," which in Egyptian also is 
"Rkh" [BUNSEN]; and in Chaldee, with the prosthetic a prefixed becomes Arkh). * From the same root also 
evidently comes the epithet Architis, as applied to the Venus that wept for Adonis. Venus Architis is the spiritual 
Venus. ** 

* The Hebrew Dem, blood, in Chaldee becomes Adem; and, in like manner, Rkh becomes Arkh. 

** From OUVAROFF we learn that the mother of the third Bacchus was Aura, and Phaethon is said by Orpheus to have 
been the son of the "wide extended air" (LACTANTIUS). The connection in the sacied language between the wind, the air, 
and the spirit, sufficiently accounts for these statements, and shows their real meaning. 

Thus, then, the mother-wife of the first king that reigned was known as Archia and Melitta, in other words, as the 
woman in whom the "Spirit of God" was incarnate; and thus appeared as the "Dea Benigna," "The Mediatrix" for 
sinful mortals. The first form of Astarte, as Eve, brought sin into the world; the second form before the Flood, was 
avenging as the goddess of justice. This form was "Benignant and Merciful." Thus, also, Semiramis, or Astarte, as 
Venus the goddess of love and beauty, became "The HOPE of the whole world," and men gladly had recourse to the 
"mediation" of one so tolerant of sin. 


"Tree, whose mortal taste. 
Brought death into the world, and all our woe." 

Fig. 33: Juno, with Pomegranate 

From BRYANT, vol. iii. p. 276. 

Bryant gives the title of the above figure as "Juno, Columba, and Rhoia;" but 
from Pausanias we learn that the bird on the sceptre of Hera, or Juno, when she 
was represented with the pomegranate, was not the Columba or Dove, but the 
Cuckoo (PAUSAN., lib. ii. Corinthiaca, cap. 17); from which it appears, that 
when Hera or Juno was thus represented, it was not as the incarnation of the 
Spirit of God, but as the mother of mankind, that she was represented. But into 
the story of the cuckoo I cannot enter here. 

The knowledge to which the votaries of the Idaean goddess were admitted, was precisely of the 
same kind as that which Eve derived from the eating of the forbidden fruit, the practical 
knowledge of all that was morally evil and base. Yet to Astarte, in this character, men were 
taught to look at their grand benefactress, as gaining for them knowledge, and blessings 
connected with that knowledge, which otherwise they might in vain have sought from Him, who 
is the Father of lights, from whom cometh down every good and perfect gift. Popery inspires the 
same feeling in regard to the Romish queen of heaven, and leads its devotees to view the sin of 
Eve in much the same light as that in which Paganism regarded it. In the Canon of the Mass, the 
most solemn service in the Romish Missal, the following expression occurs, where the sin of our 
first parent is apostrophised: "Oh blessed fault, which didst procure such a Redeemer!" The idea 
contained in these words is purely Pagan. They just amount to this: "Thanks be to Eve, to whose 
sin we are indebted for the glorious Saviour." It is true the idea contained in them is found in the 
same words in the writings of Augustine; but it is an idea utterly opposed to the spirit of the 
Gospel, which only makes sin the more exceeding sinful, from the consideration that it needed 


such a ransom to deliver from its awful curse. Augustine had imbibed many Pagan sentiments, 
and never got entirely delivered from them. 

As Rome cherishes the same feelings as Paganism did, so it has adopted also the very same 
symbols, so far as it has the opportunity. In this country, and most of the countries of Europe, no 
pomegranates grow; and yet, even here, the superstition of the Rimmon must, as far as possible, 
be kept up. Instead of the pomegranate, therefore, the orange is employed; and so the Papists of 
Scotland join oranges with their eggs at Easter; and so also, when Bishop Gillis of Edinburgh 
went through the vain- glorious ceremony of washing the feet of twelve ragged Irishmen a few 
years ago at Easter, he concluded by presenting each of them with two eggs and an orange. 

Now, this use of the orange as the representative of the fruit of Eden's "dread probationary tree," 
be it observed, is no modem invention; it goes back to the distant times of classic antiquity. The 
gardens of the Hesperides in the West, are admitted by all who have studied the subject, just to 
have been the counterpart of the paradise of Eden in the East. The description of the sacred 
gardens, as situated in the Isles of the Atlantic, over against the coast of Africa, shows that their 
legendary site exactly agrees with the Cape Verd or Canary Isles, or some of that group; and, of 
course, that the "golden fruit" on the sacred tree, so jealously guarded, was none other than the 
orange. Now, let the reader mark well: According to the classic Pagan story, there was no serpent 
in that garden of delight in the "islands of the blest," to TEMPT mankind to violate their duty to 
their great benefactor, by eating of the sacred tree which he had reserved as the test of their 
allegiance. No; on the contrary, it was the Serpent, the symbol of the Devil, the Principle of evil, 
the Enemy of man, that prohibited them from eating the precious fruit--that strictly watched it-- 
that would not allow it to be touched. Hercules, one form of the Pagan Messiah- -not the 
primitive, but the Grecian Hercules--pitying man's unhappy state, slew or subdued the serpent, 
the envious being that grudged mankind the use of that which was so necessary to make them at 
once perfectly happy and wise, and bestowed upon them what otherwise would have been 
hopelessly beyond their reach. Here, then, God and the devil are exactly made to change places. 
Jehovah, who prohibited man from eating of the tree of knowledge, is symbolised by the serpent, 
and held up as an ungenerous and malignant being, while he who emancipated man from 
Jehovah's yoke, and gave him of the fruit of the forbidden tree--in other words, Satan under the 
name of Hercules- -is celebrated as the good and gracious Deliverer of the human race. What a 
mystery of iniquity is here! Now all this is wrapped up in the sacred orange of Easter. 

Section III 
The Nativity of St. John 

The Feast of the Nativity of St. John is set down in the Papal calendar for the 24th of June, or 
Midsummer- day. The very same period was equally memorable in the Babylonian calendar as 
that of one of its most celebrated festivals. It was at Midsummer, or the summer solstice, that the 
month called in Chaldea, Syria, and Phoenicia by the name of "Tammuz" began; and on the first 
day--that is, on or about the 24th of June--one of the grand original festivals of Tammuz was 
celebrated. * 

* STANLEY'S Saboean Philosophy. In Egypt the month corresponding to 
Tammuz-- viz., Epep--began June 25 (WILKINSON) 


For different reasons, in different countries, other periods had been devoted to commemorate the 
death and reviving of the Babylonian god; but this, as may be inferred from the name of the 
month, appears to have been the real time when his festival was primitively observed in the land 
where idolatry had its birth. And so strong was the hold that this festival, with its peculiar rites, 
had taken of the minds of men, that even when other days were devoted to the great events 
connected with the Babylonian Messiah, as was the case in some parts of our own land, this 
sacred season could not be allowed to pass without the due observance of some, at least, of its 
peculiar rites. When the Papacy sent its emissaries over Europe, towards the end of the sixth 
century, to gather in the Pagans into its fold, this festival was found in high favour in many 
countries. What was to be done with it? Were they to wage war with it? No. This would have 
been contrary to the famous advice of Pope Gregory I, that, by all means they should meet the 
Pagans half- way, and so bring them into the Roman Church. The Gregorian policy was carefully 
observed; and so Midsummer- day, that had been hallowed by Paganism to the worship of 
Tammuz, was incorporated as a sacred Christian festival in the Roman calendar. 

But still a question was to be determined, What was to be the name of this Pagan festival, when 
it was baptised, and admitted into the ritual of Roman Christianity? To call it by its old name of 
Bel or Tammuz, at the early period when it seems to have been adopted, would have been too 
bold. To call it by the name of Christ was difficult, inasmuch as there was nothing special in His 
history at that period to commemorate. But the subtlety of the agents of the Mystery of Iniquity 
was not to be baffled. If the name of Christ could not be conveniently tacked to it, what should 
hinder its being called by the name of His forerunner, John the Baptist? John the Baptist was 
born six months before our Lord. When, therefore, the Pagan festival of the winter solstice had 
once been consecrated as the birthday of the Saviour, it followed, as a matter of course, that if 
His forerunner was to have a festival at all, his festival must be at this very season; for between 
the 24th of June and the 25th of December- -that is, between the summer and the winter solstice- - 
there are just six months. Now, for the purposes of the Papacy, nothing could be more opportune 
than this. One of the many sacred names by which Tammuz or Nimrod was called, when he 
reappeared in the Mysteries, after being slain, was Oannes. * 

* BEROSUS, BUNSEN'S Egypt. To identify Nimrod with Oannes, mentioned by 
Berosus as appearing out of the sea, it will be remembered that Nimrod has been 
proved to be Bacchus. Then, for proof that Nimrod or Bacchus, on being 
overcome by his enemies, was fabled to have taken refuge in the sea, see chapter 
4, section i. When, therefore, he was represented as reappearing, it was natural 
that he should reappear in the very character of Oannes as a Fish-god. Now, 
Jerome calls Dagon, the well known Fish- god Piscem moeroris (BRYANT), "the 
fish of sorrow," which goes far to identify (hat Fish-god with Bacchus, the 
"Lamented one"; and the identification is complete when Hesychius tells us that 
some called Bacchus Ichthys, or "The fish." 

The name of John the Baptist, on the other hand, in the sacred language adopted by the Roman 
Church, was Joannes. To make the festival of the 24th of June, then, suit Christians and Pagans 
alike, all that was needful was just to call it the festival of Joannes; and thus the Christians would 
suppose that they were honouring John the Baptist, while the Pagans were still worshipping their 
old god Oannes, or Tammuz. Thus, the very period at which the great summer festival of 
Tammuz was celebrated in ancient Babylon, is at this very hour observed in the Papal Church as 
the Feast of the Nativity of St. John. And the fete of St. John begins exactly as the festal day 


began in Chaldea. It is well known that, in the East, the day began in the evening. So, though the 
24th be set down as the nativity, yet it is on St. John's EVE--that is, on the evening of the 23rd-- 
that the festivities and solemnities of that period begin. 

Now, if we examine the festivities themselves, we shall see how purely Pagan they are, and how 
decisively they prove their real descent. The grand distinguishing solemnities of St. John's Eve 
are the Midsummer fires. These are lighted in France, in Switzerland, in Roman Catholic Ireland, 
and in some of the Scottish isles of the West, where Popery still lingers. They are kindled 
throughout all the grounds of the adherents of Rome, and flaming brands are carried about their 
corn-fields. Thus does Bell, in his Wayside Pictures, describe the St. John's fires of Brittany, in 
France: "Every fete is marked by distinct features peculiar to itself. That of St. John is perhaps, 
on the whole, the most striking. Throughout the day the poor children go about begging 
contributions for lighting the fires of Monsieur St. Jean, and towards evening one fire is 
gradually followed by two, three, four; then a thousand gleam out from the hill- tops, till the 
whole country glows under the conflagration. Sometimes the priests light the first fire in the 
market place; and sometimes it is lighted by an angel, who is made to descend by a mechanical 
device from the top of the church, with a flambeau in her hand, setting the pile in a blaze, and 
flying back again. The young people dance with a bewildering activity about the fires; for there 
is a superstition among them that, if they dance round nine fires before midnight, they will be 
married in the ensuing year. Seats are placed cbse to the flaming piles for the dead, whose spirits 
are supposed to come there for the melancholy pleasure of listening once more to their native 
songs, and contemplating the lively measures of their youth. Fragments of the torches on those 
occasions are preserved as spells against thunder and nervous diseases; and the crown of flowers 
which surmounted the principal fire is in such request as to produce tumultuous jealousy for its 
possession." Thus is it in France. Turn now to Ireland. "On that great festival of the Irish 
peasantry, St. John's Eve," says Charlotte Elizabeth, describing a particular festival which she 
had witnessed, "it is the custom, at sunset on that evening, to kindle immense fires throughout 
the country, built, like our bonfires, to a great height, the pile being composed of turf, bogwood, 
and such other combustible substances as they can gather. The turf yields a steady, substantial 
body of fire, the bogwood a most brilliant flame, and the effect of these great beacons blazing on 
every hill, sending up volumes of smoke from every point of the horizon, is very remarkable. 
Early in the evening the peasants began to assemble, all habited in their best array, glowing with 
health, every countenance full of that sparkling animation and excess of enjoyment that 
characterise the enthusiastic people of the land. I had never seen anything resembling it; and was 
exceedingly delighted with their handsome, intelligent, merry faces; the bold bearing of the men, 
and the playful but really modest deportment of the maidens; the vivacity of the aged people, and 
the wild glee of the children. The fire being kindled, a splendid blaze shot up; and for a while 
they stood contemplating it with faces strangely disfigured by the peculiar light first emitted 
when the bogwood was thrown on it. After a short pause, the ground was cleared in front of an 
old blind piper, the very beau ideal of energy, drollery, and shrewdness, who, seated on a low 
chair, with a well-plenished jug within his reach, screwed his pipes to the liveliest tunes, and the 
endless jig began. But something was to follow that puzzled me not a little. When the fire burned 
for some hours and got low, an indispensable part of the ceremony commenced. Every one 
present of the peasantry passed through it, and several children were thrown across the sparkling 
embers; while a wooden frame of some eight feet long, with a horse's head fixed to one end, and 
a large white sheet thrown over it, concealing the wood and the man on whose head it was 
carried, made its appearance. This was greeted with loud shouts as the 'white horse'; and having 


been safely carried, by the skill of its bearer, several times through the fire with a bold leap, it 
pursued the people, who ran screaming in every direction. I asked what the horse was meant for, 
and was told it represented 'all cattle.' Here," adds the authoress, "was the old Pagan worship of 
Baal, if not of Moloch too, carried on openly and universally in the heart of a nominally 
Christian country, and by millions professing the Christian name! I was confounded, for I did not 
then know that Popery is only a crafty adaptation of Pagan idolatries to its own scheme." 

Such is the festival of St. John's Eve, as celebrated at this day in France and in Popish Ireland. 
Such is the way in which the votaries of Rome pretend to commemorate the birth of him who 
came to prepare the way of the Lord, by turning away His ancient people from all their refuges 
of lies, and shutting them up to the necessity of embracing that kingdom of God that consists not 
in any mere external thing, but in "righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." We 
have seen that the very sight of the rites with which that festival is celebrated, led the authoress 
just quoted at once to the conclusion that what she saw before her was truly a relic of the Pagan 
worship of Baal. The history of the festival, and the way in which it is observed, reflect mutual 
light upon each other. Before Christianity entered the British Isles, the Pagan festival of the 24th 
of June was celebrated among the Druids by blazing fires in honour of their great divinity, who, 
as we have already seen, was Baal. "These Midsummer fires and sacrifices," says Toland, in his 
Account of the Druids, "were [intended] to obtain a blessing on the fruits of the earth, now 
becoming ready for gathering; as those of the first of May, that they might prosperously grow; 
and those of the last of October were a thanksgiving for finishing the harvest." Again, speaking 
of the Druidical fires at Midsummer, he thus proceeds: "To return to our earn- fires, it was 
customary for the lord of the place, or his son, or some other person of distinction, to take the 
entrails of the sacrificed animals in his hands, and, walking barefoot over the coals thrice after 
the flames had ceased, to carry them straight to the Druid, who waited in a whole skin at the 
altar. If the nobleman escaped harmless, it was reckoned a good omen, welcomed with loud 
acclamations; but if he received any hurt, it was deemed unlucky both to the community and 
himself." "Thus, I have seen," adds Toland, "the people running and leaping through the St. 
John's fires in Ireland; and not only proud of passing unsinged, but, as if it were some kind of 
lustration, thinking themselves in an especial manner blest by the ceremony, of whose original, 
nevertheless, they were wholly ignorant, in their imperfect imitation of it." We have seen reason 
already to conclude that Phoroneus, "the first of mortals that reigned"- -i.e., Nimrod and the 
Roman goddess Feronia--bore a relation to one another. In connection with the firs of "St. John," 
that relation is still further established by what has been handed down from antiquity in regard to 
these two divinities; and, at the same time, the origin of these fires is elucidated. Phoroneus is 
described in such a way as shows that he was known as having been connected with the origin of 
fire-worship. Thus does Pausanias refer to him: "Near this image [the image of Biton] they [the 
Argives] enkindle a fire, for they do not admit that fire was given by Prometheus, to men, but 
ascribe the invention of it to Phoroneus." There must have been something tragic about the death 
of this fire- inventing Phoroneus, who "first gathered mankind into communities"; for, after 
describing the position of his sepulchre, Pausanias adds: "Indeed, even at present they perform 
funeral obsequies to Phoroneus"; language which shows that his death must have been celebrated 
in some such way as that of Bacchus. Then the character of the worship of Feronia, as coincident 
with fire-worship, is evident from the rites practised by the priests at the city lying at the foot of 
Mount Socracte, called by her name. "The priests," says Bryant, referring both to Pliny and 
Strabo as his authorities, "with their feet naked, walked over a large quantity of live coals and 
cinders." To this same practice we find Aruns in Virgil referring, when addressing Apollo, the 


sun- god, who had his shrine at Soracte, where Feronia was worshipped, and who therefore must 
have been the same as Jupiter Anxur, her contemplar divinity, who was regarded as a "youthful 
Jupiter," even as Apollo was often called the "young Apollo": 

"O patron of Soracte's high abodes, 

Phoebus, the ruling power among the gods, 

Whom first we serve; whole woods of unctuous pine 

Are felled for thee, and to thy glory shine. 

By thee protected, with our naked soles, 

Through flames unsinged we march and tread the kindled coals." * 

* DRYDEN'S Virgil Aeneid. "The young Apollo," when "born to introduce law 
and order among the Greeks," was said to have made his appearance at Delphi 
"exactly in the middle of summer." (MULLER'S Dorians) 

Thus the St. John's fires, over whose cinders old and young are made to pass, are traced up to 
"the first of mortals that reigned." 

It is remarkable, that a festival attended with all the essential rites of the fire-worship of Baal, is 
found among Pagan nations, in regions most remote from one another, about the very period of 
the month of Tammuz, when the Babylonian god was anciently celebrated. Among the Turks, 
the fast of Ramazan, which, says Hurd, begins on the 12th of June, is attended by an illumination 
of burning lamps. * 

* HURD'S Rites and Ceremonies. The time here given by Hurd would not in itself 
be decisive as a proof of agreement with the period of the original festival of 
Tammuz; for a friend who has lived for three years in Constantinople informs me 
that, in consequence of the disagreement between the Turkish and the solar year, 
the fast of Ramazan ranges in succession through all the different months in the 
year. The fact of a yearly illumination in connection with religious observances, 
however, is undoubted. 

In China where the Dragon-boat festival is celebrated in such a way as vividly to recall to those 
who have witnessed it, the weeping for Adonis, the solemnity begins at Midsummer. In Peru, 
during the reign of the Incas, the feast of Raymi, the most magnificent feast of the Peruvians, 
when the sacred fire every year used to be kindled anew from the sun, by means of a concave 
mirror of polished metal, took place at the very same period. Regularly as Midsummer came 
round, there was first, in token of mourning, "for three days, a general fast, and no fire was 
allowed to be lighted in their dwellings," and then, on the fourth day, the mourning was turned 
into joy, when the Inca, and his court, followed by the whole population of Cuzco, assembled at 
early dawn in the great square to greet the rising of the sun. "Eagerly," says Prescott, "they 
watched the coming of the deity, and no sooner did his first yellow rays strike the turrets and 
loftiest buildings of the capital, than a shout of gratulation broke forth from the assembled 
multitude, accompanied by songs of triumph, and the wild melody of barbaric instruments, that 
swelled louder and louder as his bright orb, rising above the mountain range towards the east, 
shone in full splendour on his votaries." Could this alternate mourning and rejoicing, at the very 
time when the Babylonians mourned and rejoiced over Tammuz, be accidental? As Tammuz was 
the Sun- divinity incarnate, it is easy to see how such mourning and rejoicing should be 
connected with the worship of the sun. In Egypt, the festival of the burning lamps, in which 
many have already been constrained to see the counterpart of (he festival of St. John, was 


avowedly connected with the mourning and rejoicing for Osiris. "At Sais," says Herodotus, "they 
show the sepulchre of him whom I do not think it right to mention on this occasion." This is the 
invariable way in which the historian refers to Osiris, into whose mysteries he had been initiated, 
when giving accounts of any of the rites of his worship. "It is in the sacred enclosure behind the 
temple of Minerva, and close to the wall of this temple, whose whole length it occupies. They 
also meet at Sais, to offer sacrifice during a certain night, when every one lights, in the open air, 
a number of lamps around his house. The lamps consist of small cups filled with salt and oil, 
having a wick floating in it which burns all night. This festival is called the festival of burning 
lamps. The Egyptians who are unable to attend also observe the sacrifice, and burn lamps at 
home, so that not only at Sais, but throughout Egypt, the same illumination takes place. They 
assign a sacred reason for the festival celebrated on this night, and for the respect they have for 
it." Wilkinson, in quoting this passage of Herodotus, expressly identifies this festival with the 
lamentation for Osiris, and assures us that "it was considered of the greatest consequence to do 
honour to the deity by the proper performance of this rite." 

Among the Yezidis, or Devil- worshippers of Modern Chaldea, the same festival is celebrated at 
this day, with rites probably almost the same, so far as circumstances will allow, as thousands of 
years ago, when in the same regions the worship of Tammuz was in all its glory. Thus 
graphically does Mr. Layard describe a festival of this kind at which he himself had been 
present: "As the twilight faded, the Fakirs, or lower orders of priests, dressed in brown garments 
of coarse cloth, closely fitting to their bodies, and wearing black turbans on their heads, issued 
from the tomb, each bearing a light in one hand, and a pot of oil, with a bundle of cotton wick in 
the other. They filled and trimmed lamps placed in niches in the walls of the courtyard and 
scattered over the buildings on the sides of the valley, and even on isolated rocks, and in the 
hollow trunks of trees. Innumerable stars appeared to glitter on the black sides of the mountain 
and in the dark recesses of the forest. As the priests made their way through the crowd to 
perform their task, men and women passed their right hands through the flame; and after rubbing 
the right eyebrow with the part which had been purified by the sacred element, they devoutly 
carried it to their lips. Some who bore children in their arms anointed them in like manner, whilst 
others held out their hands to be touched by those who, less fortunate than themselves, could not 
reach the flame. .As night advanced, those who had assembled- -they must now have amounted to 
nearly five thousand persons --lighted torches, which they carried with them as they wandered 
through the forest. The effect was magical: the varied groups could be faintly distinguished 
through the darkness- -men hurrying to and fro- -women with their children seated on the house- 
tops—and crowds gathering round the pedlars, who exposed their wares for sale in the courtyard. 
Thousands of lights were reflected in the fountains and streams, glimmered amongst the foliage 
of the trees, and danced in the distance. As I was gazing on this extraordinary scene, the hum of 
human voices was suddenly hushed, and a strain, solemn and melancholy, arose from the valley. 
It resembled some majestic chant which years before I had listened to in the cathedral of a distant 
land. Music so pathetic and so sweet I never before heard in the East. The voices of men and 
women were blended in harmony with the soft notes of many flutes. At measured intervals the 
song was broken by the loud clash of cymbals and tambourines; and those who were within the 
precincts of the tomb then joined in the melody. ..The tambourines, which were struck 
simultaneously, only interrupted at intervals the song of the priests. As the time quickened they 
broke in more frequently. The chant gradually gave way to a lively melody, which, increasing in 
measure, was finally lost in a confusion of sounds. The tambourines were beaten with 
extraordinary energy- -the flutes poured forth a rapid flood of notes- -the voices were raised to the 


highest pitch- -the men outside joined in the cry- -whilst the women made the rocks resound with 
the shrilltahlehl. 

"The musicians, giving way to the excitement, threw their instruments into the air, and strained 
their limbs into every contortion, until they fell exhausted to the ground. I never heard a more 
frightful yell than that which rose in the valley. It was midnight. I gazed with wonder upon the 
extraordinary scene around me. Thus were probably celebrated ages ago the mysterious rites of 
the Corybantes, when they met in some consecrated grove." Layard does not state at what period 
of the year this festival occurred; but his language leaves little doubt that he regarded it as a 
festival of Bacchus; in other words, of the Babylonian Messiah, whose tragic death, and 
subsequent restoration to life and glory, formed the cornerstone of ancient Paganism. The 
festival was avowedly held in honour at once of Sheikh Shems, or the Sun, and of the Sheik Adi, 
or "Prince of Eternity," around whose tomb nevertheless the solemnity took place, just as the 
lamp festival in Egypt, in honour of the sun-god Osiris, was celebrated in the precincts of the 
tomb of that god at Sais. 

Now, the reader cannot fail to have observed that in this Yezidi festival, men, women, and 
children were "PURIFIED" by coming in contact with "the sacred element" of fire. In the rites of 
Zoroaster, the great Chaldean god, fire occupied precisely the same place. It was laid down as an 
essential principle in his system, that "he who approached to fire would receive a light from 
divinity," (TAYLOR'S Jamblichus) and that "through divine fire all the stains produced by 
generation would be purged away" (PROCLUS, Timaeo). Therefore it was that "children were 
made to pass through (he fire to Moloch" (Jer 32:35), to purge them from original sin, and 
through this purgation many a helpless babe became a victim to the bloody divinity. Among the 
Pagan Romans, this purifying by passing through the fire was equally observed; "for," says Ovid, 
enforcing the practice, "Fire purifies both the shepherd and the sheep." Among the Hindoos, 
from time immemorial, fire has been worshipped for its purifying efficacy. Thus a worshipper is 
represented by Colebrooke, according to the sacred books, as addressing the fire: "Salutation to 
thee [O fire!], who dost seize oblations, to thee who dost shine, to thee who dost scintillate, may 
thy auspicious flame burn our foes; mayest thou, the PURIFIER, be auspicious unto us." There 
are some who maintain a "perpetual fire," and perform daily devotions to it, and in "concluding 
the sacraments of the gods," thus every day present their supplications to it: "Fire, thou dost 
expiate a sin against the gods; may this oblation be efficacious. Thou dost expiate a sin against 
man; thou dost expiate a sin against the manes [departed spirits]; thou dost expiate a sin against 
my own soul; thou dost expiate repeated sins; thou dost expiate every sin which I have 
committed, whether wilfully or unintentionally; may this oblation be efficacious." Among the 
Druids, also, fire was celebrated as the purifier. Thus, in a Druidic song, we read, "They 
celebrated the praise of the holy ones in the presence of the purifying fire, which was made to 
ascend on high" (DAVIES'S Druids, "Song to the Sun"). If, indeed, a blessing was expected in 
Druidical times from lighting the earn- fires, and making either young or old, either human beings 
or cattle, pass through the fire, it was simply in consequence of the purgation from sin that 
attached to human beings and all things connected with them, that was believed to be derived 
from this passing through the fire. It is evident that this very same belief about the 'purifying" 
efficacy of fire is held by the Roman Catholics of Ireland, when they are so zealous to pass both 
themselves and their children through the fires of St. John. * Toland testifies that it is as a 
"lustration" that these fires are kindled; and all who have carefully examined the subject must 
come to the same conclusion. 


* "I have seen parents," said the late Lord J. Scott in a letter to me, 'force their 
children to go through the Baal- fires." 

Now, if Tammuz was, as we have seen,the same as Zoroaster, the god of the ancient "fire- 
worshippers," and if his festival in Babylon so exactly synchronised with the feast of the Nativity 
of St. John, what wonder that that feast is still celebrated by the blazing "Baal- fires," and that it 
presents so faithful a copy of what was condemned by Jehovah of old in His ancient people when 
they "made their children pass through the fire to Moloch"? But who that knows anything of the 
Gospel would call such a festival as this a Christian festival? The Popish priests, if they do not 
openly teach, at least allow their deluded votaries to believe, as firmly s ever ancient fire 
worshipper did, that material fire can purge away the guilt and stain of sin. How that tends to 
rivet upon the minds of their benighted vassals one of the most monstrous but profitable fables of 
their system, will come to be afterwards considered. 

The name Oannes could be known only to the initiated as the name of the Pagan Messiah; and at 
first, some measure of circumspection was necessary in introducing Paganism into the Church. 
But, as time went on, as the Gospel became obscured, and the darkness became more intense, the 
same caution was by no means so necessary. Accordingly, we find that, in the dark ages, the 
Pagan Messiah has not been brought into the Church in a mere clandestine manner. Openly and 
avowedly under his well known classic names of Bacchus and Dionysus, has he been canonised, 
and set up for the worship of the "faithful." Yes, Rome, that professes to be pre-eminently the 
Bride of Christ, the only Church in which salvation is to be found, has had the unblushing 
effrontery to give the grand Pagan adversary of the Son of God, UNDER HIS OWN PROPER 
NAME, a place in her calendar. The reader has only to turn to the Roman calendar, and he will 
find that this is a literal fact; he will find that October the 7th is set apart to be observed in 
honour of "St. Bacchus the Martyr." Now, no doubt, Bacchus was a "martyr"; he died a violent 
death; he lost his life for religion; but the religion for which he died was the religion of the fire- 
worshippers; for he was put to death, as we have seen from Maimonides, for maintaining the 
worship of the host of heaven. This patron of the heavenly host, and of fire worship (for the two 
went always hand in hand together), has Rome canonised; for that this "St. Bacchus the Martyr" 
was the identical Bacchus of the Pagans, the god of drunkenness and debauchery, is evident from 
the time of his festival; for October the 7th follows soon after the end of the vintage. At the end 
of the vintage in autumn, the old Pagan Romans used to celebrate what was called the "Rustic 
Festival" of Bacchus; and about that very time does the Papal festival of "St Bacchus the Martyr" 

As the Chalden god has been admitted into the Roman calendar under the name of Bacchus, so 
also is he canonised under his other name of Dionysus. The Pagans were in the habit of 
worshipping the same god under different names; and, accordingly, not content with the festival 
to Bacchus, under the name by which he was most commonly known at Rome, the Romans, no 
doubt to please the Greeks, celebrated a rustic festival to him, two days afterwards, under the 
name of Dionysus Eleuthereus, the name by which he was worshipped in Greece. That "rustic" 
festival was briefly called by the name of Dionysia; or, expressing its object more fully, the name 
became "Festum Dionysi Eleutherei rusticum"--i.e., the "rustic festival of Dionysus 
Eleuthereus." (BEGG'S Handbook of Popery) Now, the Papacy in its excess of zeal for saints 
and saint- worship, has actually split Dionysus Eleuthereus into two, has made two several saints 
out of the double name of one Pagan divinity; and more than that, has made the innocent epithet 
"Rusticum," which, even among the heathen, had no pretension to divinity at all, a third; and so 


it comes to pass that, under date of October the 9th, we read this entry in the calendar: "The 
festival of St. Dionysius, * and of his companions, St. Eleuther and St. Rustic." 

* Though Dionysus was the proper classic name of the god, yet in Post-classical, 
or Low Latin, his name is found Dionysius, just as in the case of the Romish saint. 

Now this Dionysius, whom Popery has so marvellously furnished with two companions, is the 
famed St. Denys, the patron saint of Paris; and a comparison of the history of the Popish saint 
and the Pagan god will cast no little light on the subject. St. Denys, on being beheaded and cast 
into the Seine, so runs the legend, after floating a space on its waters, to the amazement of the 
spectators, took up his head in his hand, and so marched away with it to the place of burial. In 
commemoration of so stupendous a miracle, a hymn was duly chanted for many a century in the 
Cathedral of St. Denys, at Paris, containing the following verse: 

"The corpse immediately arose; 

The trunk bore away the dissevered head, 

Guided on its way by a legion of angels." 

(SALVERTE, Des Sciences Occultes) 

At last, even Papists began to be ashamed of such an absurdity being celebrated in the name of 
religion; and in 1789, "the office of St. Denys" was abolished. Behold, however, the march of 
events. The world has for some time past been progressing back again to the dark ages. The 
Romish Breviary, which had been given up in France, has, within the last six years, been 
reimposed by Papal authority on the Gallican Church, with all its lying legends, and this among 
the rest of them; the Cathedral of St. Denys is again being rebuilt, and the old worship bids fair 
to be restored in all its grossness. Now, how could it ever enter the minds of men to invent so 
monstrous a fable? The origin of it is not far to seek. The Church of Rome represented her 
canonised saints, who were said to have suffered martyrdom by the sword, as headless images or 
statues with the severed head borne in the hand. "I have seen," says Eusebe Salverte, "in a church 
of Normandy, St. Clair; St. Mithra, at Aries, in Switzerland, all the soldiers of the Theban legion 
represented with their heads in their hands. St. Valerius is thus figured at Limoges, on the gates 
of the cathedral, and other monuments. The grand seal of the canton of Zurich represents, in the 
same attitude, St. Felix, St. Regula, and St. Exsuperantius. There certainly is the origin of the 
pious fable which is told of these martyrs, such as St. Denys and many others besides." This was 
the immediate origin of the story of the dead saint rising up and marching away with his head in 
his hand. But it turns out that this very mode of representation was borrowed from Paganism, and 
borrowed in such a way as identifies the Papal St. Denys of Paris with the Pagan Dionysus, not 
only of Rome but of Babylon. Dionysus or Bacchus, in one of his transformations, was 
represented as Capricorn, the "goat-horned fish"; and there is reason to believe that it was in this 
very form that he had the name of Oannes. In this form in India, under the name "Souro," that is 
evidently "the seed," he is said to have done many marvellous things. (For Oannes and Souro) 11 

Oannes and Souro 

The reason for believing that Oannes, that was said to have been the first of the fabulous creatures that came up out 
of the sea and instructed the Babylonians, was represented as the goat-horned fish, is as follows: First, the name 
Oannes, as elsewhere shown, is just the Greek form of He-annesh, or "The man," which is a synonym for the name 
of our first parent, Adam. Now, Adam can be proved to be the original of Pan, who was also called Inuus, which is 
just another pronunciation of Anosh without the article, which, in our translation of Genesis 5:7, is made Enos. This 
name, as universally admitted, is the generic name fox: man after the Fall, as weak and diseased. The o in Enos is 
what is called the vau, which sometimes is pronounced o, sometimes u, and sometimes v or w. A legitimate 


Now, in the Persian Sphere he was not only represented mystically as Capricorn, but also in the 
human shape; and then exactly as St. Denys is ^presented by the Papacy. The words of the 
ancient writer who describes this figure in the Persian Sphere are these: "Capricorn, the third 
Decan. The half of the figure without a head, because its head is in its hand." Nimrod had his 
head cut off; and in commemoration of that fact, which his worshippers so piteously bewailed, 
his image in the Sphere was so represetned. That dissevered head, in some of the versions of his 
story, was fabled to have done as marvellous things as any that were done by the lifeless trunk of 
St. Denys. Bryant has proved, in this story of Orpheus, that it is just a slighty- coloured variety of 
the story of Osiris. * 

* BRYANT. The very name Orpheus is just a synonym for Bel, the name of the 
great Babylonian god, which, while originally given to Cush, became hereditary 
in the line of his deified descendants. Bel signifies "to mix," as well as "to 
confound," and "Orv" in Hebrew, which in Chaldee becomes Orph, signifies also 
"to mix." But "Orv," or "Orph," signifies besides "a willow-tree"; and therefore, in 
exact accordance with the mystic system, we find the symbol of Orpheus among 
the Greeks to have been a willow-tree. Thus, Pausanias, after referring to a 
representation of Actaeon, says, "If again you look to the lower parts of the 
picture, you will see after Patroclus, Orpheus sitting on a hill, with a harp in his 
left hand, and in his right hand the leaves of a willow-tree"; and again, a little 
further on, he says: "He is represented leaning on the trunk of this tree." The 

pronunciation of Enos, therefore, is just Enus or Enws, the same in sound as Inuus, the Ancient Roman name of Pan. 
The name Pan itself signifies "He who turned aside." As the Hebrew word for "uprightness" signifies "walking 
straight in the way," so every deviation from the straight line of duty was Sin; Hata, the word for sin, signifying 
generically "to go aside from the straight line." Pan, it is admitted, was the Head of the Satyrs-that is, "the first of 
the Hidden Ones," for Satyr and Satur, "the Hidden One," are evidently just the same word; and Adam was the first 
of mankind that hid himself. Pan is said to have loved a nymph called Pitho, or, as it is given in another form, Pitys 
(SMITH, "Pan"); and what is Pitho or Pitys but just the name of the beguiling woman, who, having been beguiled 
herself, acted the part of a beguiler of her husband, and induced him to take the step, in consequence of which he 
earned the name Pan, "The man that turned aside." Pitho or Pitys evidently come from Peth or Pet, "to beguile," 
from which verb also the famous serpent Python derived its name. This conclusion in regard to the personal identity 
of Pan and Pitho is greatly confirmed by the titles given to the wife of Faunus. Faunus, says Smith, is "merely 
another name for Pan." * 

* In Chaldee the same letter that is pronounced P is also pronounced Ph, that is F, therefore Pan is just Faun. 

Now, the wife of Faunus was called Oma, Fauna, and Fatua, which names plainly mean "The mother that turned 
aside, being beguiled." This beguiled mother is also called indifferently "the sister, wife, or daughter" of her 
husband; and how this agrees with the relations of Eve to Adam, the reader does not need to be told. 

Now, a title of Pan was Capricornus, or "The goat-horned" (DYMOCK, "Pan"), and the origin of this title must be 
traced to what took place when our first parent became the Head of the Satyrs— the "first of the Hidden ones." He 
fled to hide himself; and Berkha, "a fugitive," signifies also "a he-goat." Hence the origin of the epithet Capricornus, 
or "goat-horned," as applied to Pan. But as Capricornus in the sphere is generally represented as the "Goat-fish," if 
Capricornus represents Pan, or Adam, or Oannes, that shows that it must be Adam, after, through virtue of the 
metempsychosis, he had passed through the waters of the deluge: the goat, as the symbol of Pan, representing Adam, 
the first father of mankind, combined with the fish, the symbol of Noah, the second father of the human race; of both 
whom Nimrod, as at once Kronos, "the father of the gods," and Souro, "the seed," was a new incarnation. Among 
the idols of Babylon, as represented in KITTO'S Illust. Commentary, we find a representation of this very 
Capricornus, or goat-horned fish; and Berosus tells us that the well known representations of Pan, of which 
Capricornus is a modification, were found in Babylon in the most ancient times. A great deal more of evidence 
might be adduced on this subject; but I submit to the reader if the above statement does not sufficiently account for 
the origin of the remarkable figure in the Zodiac, "The goat-horned fish." 


willow- leaves in the right hand of Orpheus, and the willow- tree on which he 
leans, sufficiently show the meaning of his name. 

As Osiris was cut in pieces in Egypt, so Orpheus was torn in pieces in Thrace. Now, when the 
mangled limbs of the latter had been strewn about the field, his head, floating on the Hebrus, 
gave proof of the miraculous character of him that owned it. "Then," says Virgil: 

"Then, when his head from his fair shoulders torn, 

Washed by the waters, was on Hebrus borne, 
Even then his trembling voice invoked his bride, 

With his last voice, Eurydice,' he creid; 
Eurydice,' the rockes and river banks replied." 

There is diversity here, but amidst that diversity there is an obvious unity. In both cases, the head 
dissevered from the lifeless body occupies the foreground of the picture; in both cases, the 
miracle is in connection with a river. Now, when the festivals of "St. Bacchus the Martyr," and 
of "St. Dionysius and Eleuther," so remarkably agree with the time when the festivals of the 
Pagan god of wine were celbrated, whether by the name of Bacchus, or Dionysus, or 
Eleuthereus, and when the mode of representing the modern Dionysius and the ancient Dionysus 
are evidently the very same, while the legends of both so strikiingly harmonise, who can doubt 
the real character of those Romish festivals? They are not Christina. They are Pagan; they are 
unequivocally Babylonian. 

Section IV 
The Feast of the Assumption 

If what has been already said shows the carnal policy of Rome at the expense of truth, the 
circumstances attending the festival of the Assumption show the daring wickedness and 
blasphemy of that Church still more; considering that the doctrine in regard to this festival, so far 
as the Papacy is concerned, was not established in the dark ages, but three centuries after the 
Reformation, amid all the boasted light of the nineteenth century. The doctrine on which the 
festival of the Assumption is founded, is this: that the Virgin Mary saw no corruption, that in 
body and in soul she was carried up to heaven, and now is invested with all power in heaven and 
in earth. This doctrine has been unblushingly avowed in the face of the British public, in a recent 
pastoral of the Popish Archbishop of Dublin. This doctrine has now received the stamp of Papal 
Infallibility, having been embodied in the late blasphemous decree that proclaims the 
"Immaculate Conception." Now, it is impossible for the priests of Rome to find one shred of 
countenance for such a doctrine in Scripture. But, in the Babylonian system, the fable was ready 
made to their hand. There it was taught that Bacchus went down to hell, rescued his mother from 
the infernal powers, and carried her with him in triumph to heaven. * 

* APOLLODORUS. We have seen that the great goddess, who was worshipped 
in Babylon as "The Mother," was in reality the wife of Ninus, the great god, the 
prototype of Bacchus. In conformity with this, we find a somewhat similar story 
told of Ariadne, the wife of Bacchus, as is fabled of Semele his mother. "The 
garment of Thetis," says Bryant, "contained a description of some notable 
achievements in the first ages; and a particular account of the apotheosis, of 
Ariadne, who is described, whatever may be the meaning of it, as carried by 


Bacchus to heaven." A similar story is told of Alcmene, the mother of the Grecian 
Hercules, who was quite distinct, as we have seen, from the primitive Hercules, 
and was just one of the forms of Bacchus, for he was a "great tippler"; and the 
"Herculean goblets" are proverbial. (MULLER'S Dorians) Now the mother of this 
Hercules is said to have had a resurrection. "Jupiter" [the father of Hercules], says 
Muller, "raised Alcmene from the dead, and conducted her to the islands of the 
blest, as the wife of Rhadamanthus." 

This fable spread wherever the Babylonian system spread; and, accordingly, at this day, the 
Chinese celebrate, as they have done from time immemorial, a festival in honour of a Mother, 
who by her son was rescued from the power of death and the grave. The festival of the 
Assumption in the Romish Church is held on the 15th of August. The Chinese festival, founded 
on a similar legend, and celebrated with lanterns and chandeliers, as shown by Sir J. F. Davis in 
his able and graphic account of China, is equally celebrated in the month of August. Now, when 
the mother of the Pagan Messiah came to be celebrated as having been thus "Assumed" then it 
was that, under the name of the "Dove," she was worshipped as the Incarnation of the Spirit of 
God, with whom she was identified. As such as she was regarded as the source of all holiness, 
and the grand "PURIFIER," and, of course, was known herself as the "Virgin" mother, "PURE 
AND UNDEFILED." (PROCLUS, in TAYLORS Note upon Jamblichus) Under the name of 
Proserpine (with whom, though the Babylonian goddess was originally distinct, she was 
identified), while celebrated, as the mother of the first Bacchus, and known as "Pluto's honoured 
wife," she is also addressed, in the "Orphic Hymns," as 

"Associate of the seasons, essence bright, 
All- ruling VIRGIN, bearing heavenly light." 

Whoever wrote these hymns, the more they are examined the more does it become evident, when 
they are compared with the most ancient doctrine of Classic Greece, that their authors 
understood and thoroughly adhered to the genuine theology of Paganism. To the fact that 
Proserpine was currently worshipped in Pagan Greece, though well known to be the wife of 
Pluto, the god of hell, under the name of "The Holy Virgin," we find Pausanias, while describing 
the grove Carnasius, thus bearing testimony: "This grove contains a statue of Apollo Carneus, of 
Mercury carrying a ram, and of Proserpine, the daughter of Ceres, who is called 'The HOLY 
VIRGIN.'" The purity of this "Holy Virgin" did not consist merely in freedom from actual sin, 
but she was especially distinguished for her "immaculate conception"; for Proclus says, "She is 
called Core, through the purity of her essence, and her UNDEFILED transcendency in her 
GENERATIONS." Do men stand amazed at the recent decree? There is no real reason to 
wonder. It was only in following out the Pagan doctrine previously adopted and interwoven with 
the whole system of Rome to its logical consequences, that that decree has been issued, and that 
the Madonna of Rome has been formally pronounced at last, in every sense of the term, 
absolutely "IMMACULATE." 

Now, after all this, is it possible to doubt that the Madonna of Rome, with the child in her arms, 
and the Madonna of Babylon, are one and the same goddess? It is notorious that the Roman 
Madonna is worshipped as a goddess, yea, is the supreme object of worship. Will not, then, the 
Christians of Britain revolt at the idea of longer supporting this monstrous Babylonian 
Paganism? What Christian constituency could tolerate that its representative should vote away 
the money of this Protestant nation for the support of such blasphemous idolatry? * 


* It is to be lamented that Christians in general seem to have so little sense either 
of the gravity of the present crisis of the Church and the world, or of the duty 
lying upon them as Christ's witnesses, to testify, and that practically, against the 
public sins of the nation. If they would wish to be stimulated to a more vigorous 
discharge of duty in this respect, let them read an excellent and well-timed little 
work recently issued from the press, entitled An Original Interpretation of the 
Apocalypse, where the Apocalyptic statements in regard to the character, life, 
death, and resurrection of the Two Witnesses, are briefly but forcibly handled. 

Were not the minds of men judicially blinded, they would tremble at the very thought of 
incurring the guilt that this land, by upholding the corruption and wickedness of Rome, has for 
years past been contracting. Has not the Word of God, in the most energetic and awful terms, 
doomed the New Testament Babylon? And has it not equally declared, that those who share in 
Babylon's sins, shall share in Babylon's plagues! (Rev 18:4) 

The guilt of idolatry is by many regarded as comparatively slight and insignificant guilt. But not 
so does the God of heaven regard it. Which is the commandment of all the ten that is fenced 
about with the most solemn and awful sanctions? It is the second: "Thou shalt not make unto 
thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the 
earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, 
nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon 
the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." These words were 
spoken by God's own lips, they were written by God's own finger on the tables of stone: not for 
the instruction of the seed of Abraham only, but of all the tribes and generations of mankind. No 
other commandment has such a threatening attached to it as this. Now, if God has threatened to 
visit the SIN OF IDOLATRY ABOVE ALL OTHER SINS, and if we find the heavy judgments 
of God pressing upon us as a nation, while this very sin is crying to heaven against us, ought it 
not to be a matter of earnest inquiry, if among all our other national sins, which are both many 
and great, this may not form "the very head and front of our offending"? What though we do not 
ourselves bow down to stocks and stones? Yet if we, making a profession the very opposite, 
encourage, and foster, and maintain that very idolatry which God has so fearfully threatened with 
His wrath, our guilt, instead of being the less, is only so much the greater, for it is a sin against 
the light. Now, the facts are manifest to all men. It is notorious, that in 1845 anti- Christian 
idolatry was incorporated in the British Constitution, in a way in which for a century and a half it 
had not been incorporated before. It is equally notorious, that ever since, the nation has been 
visited with one succession of judgments after another. Ought we then to regard this coincidence 
as merely accidental? Ought we not rather to see in it the fulfilment of the threatening 
pronounced by God in the Apocalypse? This is at this moment an intensely practical subject. If 
our sin in this matter is not nationally recognised, if it is not penitently confessed, if it is not put 
away from us; if, on the contrary, we go on increasing it, if now for the first time since the 
Revolution, while so manifestly dependent on the God of battles for the success of our arms, we 
affront Him to His face by sending idol priests into our camp, then, though we have national 
fasts, and days of humiliation without number, they cannot be accepted; they may procure us a 
temporary respite, but we may be certain that "the Lord's anger will not be turned away, His hand 
will be stretched out still." * 

* The above paragraph first appeared in the spring of 1855, when the empire had 
for months been looking on in amazement at the "horrible and heart-rending" 
disasters in the Crimea, caused simply by the fact, that official men in that distant 


region "could not find their hands," and when at last a day of humiliation had 
been appointed. The reader can judge whether or not the events that have since 
occurred have made the above reasoning out of date. The few years of impunity 
that have elapsed since the Indian Mutiny, with all its horrors, was suppressed, 
show the long-suffering of God. But if that long-suffering is despised (which it 
manifestly is, while the guilt is daily increasing), the ultimate issue must just be so 
much the more terrible. 

Chapter IV 
Doctrine and Discipline 

When Linacer, a distinguished physician, but bigoted Romanist, in the reign of Henry VIII first 
fell in with the New Testament, after reading it for a while, he tossed it from him with 
impatience and a great oath, exclaiming, "Either this book is not true, or we are not Christians." 
He saw at once that the system of Rome and the system of the New Testament were directly 
opposed to one another; and no one who impartially compares the two systems can come to any 
other conclusion. In passing from the Bible to the Breviary, it is like passing from light to 
darkness. While the one breathes glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will to 
men, the other inculcates all that is dishonouring to the Most High, and ruinous to the moral and 
spiritual welfare of mankind. How came it that such pernicious doctrines and practices were 
embraced by the Papacy? Was the Bible so obscure or ambiguous that men naturally fell into the 
mistake of supposing that it required them to believe and practise the very opposite of what it 
did? No; the doctrine and discipline of the Papacy were never derived from the Bible. The fact 
that wherever it has the power, it lays the reading of the Bible under its ban, and either consigns 
that choicest gift of heavenly love to the flames, or shuts it up under lock and key, proves this of 
itself. But it can be still more conclusively established. A glance at the main pillars of the Papal 
system will sufficiently prove that its doctrine and discipline, in all essential respects, have been 
derived from Babylon. Let the reader now scan the evidence. 

Section I 
Baptismal Regeneration 

It is well known that regeneration by baptism is a fundamental article of Rome, yea, that it stands 
at the very threshold of the Roman system. So important, according to Rome, is baptism for this 
purpose, that, on the one hand, it is pronounced of "absolute necessity for salvation," * insomuch 
that infants dying without it cannot be admitted to glory; and on the other, its virtues are so great, 
that it is declared in all cases infallibly to "regenerate us by a new spiritual birth, making us 
children of God":-- it is pronounced to be "the first door by which we enter into the fold of Jesus 
Christ, the first means by which we receive the grace of reconciliation with God; therefore the 
merits of His death are by baptism applied to our souls in so superabundant a manner, as fully to 
satisfy Divine justice for all demands against us, whether for original or actual sin." 

* Bishop HAY'S Sincere Christian. There are two exceptions to this statement; 
the case of an infidel converted in a heathen land, where it is impossible to get 
baptism, and the case of a martyr "baptised," as it is called, "in his own blood"; 
but in all other cases, whether of young or old, the necessity is "absolute." 


Now, in both respects this doctrine is absolutely anti- Scriptural; in both it is purely Pagan. It is 
an ti- Scriptural, for the Lord Jesus Christ has expressly declared that infants, without the slightest 
respect to baptism or any external ordinance whatever, are capable of admission into all the 
glory of the heavenly world: "Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not; for 
of such is the kingdom of heaven." John the Baptist, while yet in his mother's womb was so filled 
with joy at the advent of the Saviour, that, as soon as Mary's salutation sounded in the ears of his 
own mother, the unborn babe "leaped in the womb for joy. " Had that child died at the birth, what 
could have excluded it from "the inheritance of the saints in light" for which it was so certainly 
"made meet"? Yet the Roman Catholic Bishop Hay, in defiance of very principle of God's Word, 
does not hesitate to pen the following: "Question: What becomes of young children who die 
without baptism? Answer: If a young child were put to death for the sake of Christ, this would be 
to it the baptism of blood, and carry it to heaven; but except in this case, as such infants are 
incapable of having the desire of baptism, with the other necessary dispositions, if they are not 
actually baptised with water, THEY CANNOT GO TO HEAVEN." As this doctrine never came 
from the Bible, whence came it? It came from heathenism. The classic reader cannot fail to 
remember where, and in what melancholy plight, Aeneas, when he visited the infernal regions, 
found the souls of unhappy infants who had died before receiving, so to speak, "the rites of the 

"Before the gates the cries of babes new-born, 

Whom fate had from their tender mothers torn, 

Assault his ears." 

These wretched babes, to glorify the virtue and efficacy of the mystic rites of Paganism, are 
excluded from the Elysian Fields, the paradise of the heathen, and have among their nearest 
associates no better company than that of guilty suicides: 

"The next in place and punishment are they 

Who prodigally threw their souls away, 

Fools, who, repining at their wretched state, 

And loathing anxious life, suborned their fate." * 

* Virgil, DRYDEN'S translation. Between the infants and the suicides one other 
class is interposed, that is, those who on earth have been unjustly condemned to 
die. Hope is held out for these, but no hope is held out for the babes. 

So much for the lack of baptism. Then as to its positive efficacy when obtained, the Papal 
doctrine is equally anti- Scriptural. There are professed Protestants who hold the doctrine of 
Baptismal Regeneration; but the Word of God knows nothing of it. The Scriptural account of 
baptism is, not that it communicates the new birth, but that it is the appointed means of 
signifying and sealing that new birth where it already exists. In this respect baptism stands on the 
very same ground as circumcision. Now, what says God's Word of the efficacy of circumcision? 
This it says, speaking of Abraham: "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised" (Rom 4:11). Circumcision was 
not intended to make Abraham righteous; he was righteous already before he was circumcised. 
But it was intended to declare him righteous, to give him the more abundant evidence in his own 
consciousness of his being so. Had Abraham not been righteous before his circumcision, his 
circumcision could not have been a seal, could not have given confirmation to that which did not 
exist. So with baptism, it is "a seal of the righteousness of the faith" which the man "has before 


he is baptised"; for it is said, "He that believeth, and is baptised, shall be saved" (Mark 16:16). 
Where faith exists, if it be genuine, it is the evidence of a new heart, of a regenerated nature; and 
it is only on the profession of that faith and regeneration in the case of an adult, that he is 
admitted to baptism. Even in the case of infants, who can make no profession of faith or holiness, 
the administration of baptism is not for the purpose of regenerating them, or making them holy, 
but of declaring them "holy," in the sense of being fit for being consecrated, even in infancy, to 
the service of Christ, just as the whole nation of Israel, in consequence of their relation to 
Abraham, according to the flesh, were "holy unto the Lord." If they were not, in that figurative 
sense, "holy," they would not be fit subjects for baptism, which is the "seal" of a holy state. But 
the Bible pronounces them, in consequence of their descent from believing parents, to be "holy," 
and that even where only one of the parents is a believer: "The unbelieving husband is sanctified 
by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; else were your children 
unclean, but now they are HOLY" (1 Cor 7:14). It is in consequence of, and solemnly to declare, 
that "holiness," with all the responsibilities attaching to it, that they are baptised. That "holiness," 
however, is very different from the "holiness" of the new nature; and although the very fact of 
baptism, if Scripturally viewed and duly improved, is, in the hand of the good Spirit of God, an 
important means of making that "holiness" a glorious reality, in the highest sense of the term, yet 
it does not in all cases necessarily secure their spiritual regeneration. God may, or may not, as He 
sees fit, give the new heart, before, or at, or after baptism; but manifest it is, that thousands who 
have been duly baptised are still unregenerate, are still in precisely the same position as Simon 
Magus, who, after being canonically baptised by Philip, was declared to be "in the gall of 
bitterness and the bond of iniquity" (Acts 7:23). The doctrine of Rome, however, is, that all who 
are canonically baptised, however ignorant, however immoral, if they only give implicit faith to 
the Church, and surrender their consciences to the priests, are as much regenerated as ever they 
can be, and that children coming from the waters of baptism are entirely purged from the stain of 
original sin. Hence we find the Jesuit missionaries in India boasting of making converts by 
thousands, by the mere fact of baptising them, without the least previous instruction, in the most 
complete ignorance of the truths of Christianity, on their mere profession of submission to Rome. 
This doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration also is essentially Babylonian. Some may perhaps 
stumble at the idea of regeneration at all having been known in the Pagan world; but if they only 
go to India, they will find at this day, the bigoted Hindoos, who have never opened their ears to 
Christian instruction, as familiar with the term and the idea as ourselves. The Brahmins make it 
their distinguishing boast that they are "twice-born" men, and that, as such, they are sure of 
eternal happiness. Now, the same was the case in Babylon, and there the new birth was conferred 
by baptism. In the Chaldean mysteries, before any instruction could be received, it was required 
first of all, that the person to be initiated submit to baptism in token of blind and implicit 
obedience. We find different ancient authors bearing direct testimony both to the fact of this 
baptism and the intention of it. "In certain sacred rites of the heathen, " says Tertullian, especially 
referring to the worship of Isis and Mithra, "the mode of initiation is by baptism." The term 
"initiation" clearly shows that it was to the Mysteries of these divinities he referred. This baptism 
was by immersion, and seems to have been rather a rough and formidable process; for we find 
that he who passed through the purifying waters, and other necessary penances, "if he survived, 
was then admitted to the knowledge of the Mysteries." (Elliae Comment, in S. GREG. NAZ.) To 
face this ordeal required no little courage on the part of those who were initiated. There was this 
grand inducement, however, to submit, that they who were thus baptised were, as Tertullian 
assures us, promised, as the consequence, "REGENERATION, and the pardon of all their 


perjuries." Our own Pagan ancestors, the worshippers of Odin, are known to have practised 
baptismal rites, which, taken in connection with their avowed object in practising them, show 
that, originally, at least, they must have believed that the natural guilt and corruption of their 
new-born children could be washed away by sprinkling them with water, or by plunging them, as 
soon as born, into lakes or rivers. Yea, on the other side of the Atlantic, in Mexico, the same 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration was found in full vigour among the natives, when Cortez and 
his warriors landed on their shores. The ceremony of Mexican baptism, which was beheld with 
astonishment by the Spanish Roman Catholic missionaries, is thus strikingly described in 
Prescott's Conquest of Mexico: "When everything necessary for the baptism had been made 
ready, all the relations of the child were assembled, and the midwife, who was the person that 
performed the rite of baptism, * was summoned. At early dawn, they met together in the 
courtyard of the house. When the sun had risen, the midwife, taking the child in her arms, called 
for a little earthen vessel of water, while those about her placed the ornaments, which had been 
prepared for baptism, in the midst of the court. To perform the rite of baptism, she placed herself 
with her face toward the west, and immediately began to go through certain ceremonies... After 
this she sprinkled water on the head of the infant, saying, 'O my child, take and receive the water 
of the Lord of the world, which is our life, which is given for the increasing and renewing of our 
body. It is to wash and to purify. I pray that these heavenly drops may enter into your body, and 
dwell there; that they may destroy and remove from you all the evil and sin which was given you 
before the beginning of the world, since all of us are under its power'. ..She then washed the body 
of the child with water, and spoke in this manner: Whencesoever thou comest, thou that art 
hurtful to this child, leave him and depart from him, for he now liveth anew, and is BORN 
ANEW; now he is purified and cleansed afresh, and our mother Chalchivitylcue [the goddess of 
water] bringeth him into the world.' Having thus prayed, the midwife took the child in both 
hands, and, lifting him towards heaven, said, 'O Lord, thou seest here thy creature, whom thou 
hast sent into the world, this place of sorrow, suffering, and penitence. Grant him, O Lord, thy 
gifts and inspiration, for thou art the Great God, and with thee is the great goddess.'" 

* As baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation, Rome also authorises midwives 
to administer baptism. In Mexico the midwife seems to have been a "priestess." 

Here is the opus operatum without mistake. Here is baptismal regeneration and exorcism too, * 
as thorough and complete as any Romish priest or lover of Tractarianism could desire. 

* In the Romish ceremony of baptism, the first thing the priest does is to exorcise 
the devil out of the child to be baptised in these words, 'Depart from him, thou 
unclean spirit, and give place to the Holy Ghost the Comforter." (Sincere 
Christian) In the New Testament there is not the slightest hint of any such 
exorcism accompanying Christian Baptism. It is purely Pagan. 

Does the reader ask what evidence is there that Mexico had derived this doctrine from Chaldea? 
The evidence is decisive. From the researches of Humboldt we find that the Mexicans celebrated 
Wodan as the founder of their race, just as our own ancestors did. The Wodan or Odin of 

1 1 

Scandinavia can be proved to be the Adon of Babylon. The Wodan of Mexico, from the 

The Identity of the Scandinavian Odin and Adon of Babylon 

1. Nimrod, or Adon, or Adonis, of Babylon, was the great war-god. Odin, as is well known, was the same. 2 
Nimrod, in the character of Bacchus, was regarded as the god of wine; Odin is represented as taking no food but 
wine. For thus we read in the Edda: "As to himself he [Odin] stands in no need of food; wine is to him instead of 


following quotation, will be seen to be the very same: "According to the ancient traditions 
collected by the Bishop Francis Nunez de la Vega," says Humboldt, "the Wodan of the 
Chiapanese [of Mexico] was grandson of that illustrious old man, who at the time of the great 
deluge, in which the greater part of the human race perished, was saved on a raft, together with 
his family. Wodan co-operated in the construction of the great edifice which had been 
undertaken by men to reach the skies; the execution of this rash project was interrupted; each 
family received from that time a different language; and the great spirit Teotl ordered Wodan to 
go and people the country of Anahuac." This surely proves to demonstration whence originally 
came the Mexican mythology and whence also that doctrine of baptismal regeneration which the 
Mexicans held in common with Egyptian and Persian worshippers of the Chaldean Queen of 
Heaven. Prestcott, indeed, has cast doubts on the genuiness of this tradition, as being too exactly 
coincident with the Scriptural history to be easily believed. But the distinguished Humboldt, who 
had carefully examined the matter, and who had no prejudice to warp him, expresses his full 
belief in its correctness; and even from Prestcott's own interesting pages, it may be proved in 
every essential particular, with the single exception of the name of Wodan, to which he makes no 
reference. But, happily, the fact that that name had been borne by some illustrious hero among 
the supposed ancestors of the Mexican race, is put beyond all doubt by the singular circumstance 
that the Mexicans had one of their days called Wodansday, exactly as we ourselves have. This, 
taken in connection with all the circumstances, is a very striking proof, at once of the unity of the 
human race, and of the wide- spread diffusion of the system that began at Babel. 

If the question arise, How came it that the Bayblonians themselves adopted such a doctrine as 

regeneration by baptism, we have light also on that. In the Babylonian Mysteries, the 

commemoration of the flood, of the ark, and the grand events in the life of Noah, was mingled 

with the worship of the Queen of Heaven and her son. Noah, as having lived in two worlds, both 

before the flood and after it, was called "Dipheus," or "twice-born," and was represented as a god 

with two heads looking in opposite directions, the one old, and the other young (Fig. 34) . 

Though we have seen that the two-headed Janus in one aspect had reference to Cush and his son, 

Nimrod, viewed as one god, in a two- fold capacity, as the Supreme, and Father of all the deified 

"mighty ones," yet, in order to gain for him the very authority and respect essential to constitute 

every other aliment, according to what is said in these verses: The illustrious father of armies, with his own hand, 
fattens his two wolves; but the victorious Odin takes no other nourishment to himself than what arises from the 
unintermitted quaffing of wine" (MALLET, 20th Fable). 3. The name of one of Odin's sons indicates the meaning of 
Odin's own name. Balder, for whose death such lamentations were made, seems evidently just the Chaldee form of 
Baal-zer, "The seed of Baal"; for the Hebrew z, as is well known, frequently, in the later Chaldee, becomes d. Now, 
Baal and Adon both alike signify "Lord"; and, therefore, if Balder be admitted to be the seed or son of Baal, that is 
as much as to say that he is the son of Adon; and, consequently, Adon and Odin must be the same. This, of course, 
puts Odin a step back; makes his son to be the object of lamentation and not himself; but the same was the case also 
in Egypt; for there Horus the child was sometimes represented as torn in pieces, as Osiris had been. Clemens 
Alexandrinus says (Cohortatio), "they lament an infant torn in pieces by the Titans." The lamentations for Balder 
are very plainly the counterpart of the lamentations for Adonis; and, of course, if Balder was, as the lamentations 
prove him to have been, the favourite form of the Scandinavian Messiah, he was Adon, or "Lord," as well as his 
father. 4. Then, lastly, the name of the other son of Odin, the mighty and warlike Thor, strengthens all the foregoing 
conclusions. Ninyas, the son of Ninus or Nimrod, on his father's death, when idolatry rose again, was, of course, 
from the nature of the mystic system, set up as Adon, "the Lord." Now, as Odin had a son called Thor, so the second 
Assyrian Adon had a son called Thouros. The name Thouros seems just to be another form of Zoro, or Doro, "the 
seed"; for Photius tells us that among the Greeks Thoros signified "Seed." The D is often pronounced as Th,— Adon, 
in the pointed Hebrew, being pronounced Athon. 


him properly the head of the great system of idolatry that the apostates inaugurated, it was 

necessary to represent him as in some way or other identified with the great patriarch, who was 

the Father of all, and who had so miraculous a history. Therefore in the legends of Janus, we find 

mixed up with other things derived from an entirely different source, statements not only in 
regard to his being the "Father of the world," but also his being "the inventor of ships," which 

plainly have been borrowed from the history of Noah; and therefore, the remarkable way in 

which he is represented in the figure here presented to the reader may confidently be concluded 

to have been primarily suggested by the history of the great Diluvian patriarch, whose integrity 

in his two-fold life is so particularly referred to in the Scripture, where it is said (Gen 6:9), "Noah 

was just a man, and perfect in his generations" that is, in his life before the flood, and in his life 

after it. The whole mythology of Greece and Rome, as well as Asia, is full of the history and 

deeds of Noah, which it is impossible to misunderstand. In India, the god Vishnu, "the 

Preserver," who is celebrated as having miraculously preserved one righteous family at the time 

when the world was drowned, not only has the story of Noah wrought up with his legend, but is 

called by his very name. Vishnu is just the Sanscrit form of the Chaldee "Ish-nuh," "the man 
Noah," or the "Man of rest." In the case of Indra, the "king of the gods," and god of rain, which 
is evidently only another form of the same god, the name is found in the precise form of Ishnu. 

Fig. 34: Two-Headed God 

BRYANT, vol. iii. p. 84 

Now, the very legend of Vishnu, that pretends to make him no mere creature, but the supreme 
and "eternal god," shows that this interpretation of the name is no mere unfounded imagination. 
Thus is he celebrated in the "Matsya Puran": "The sun, the wind, the ether, all things incorporeal, 
were absorbed into his Divine essence; and the universe being consumed, the eternal and 
omnipotent god, having assumed an ancient form, REPOSED mysteriously upon the surface of 
that (universal) ocean. But no one is capable of knowing whether that being was then visible or 
invisible, or what the holy name of that person was, or what the cause of his mysterious 
SLUMBER. Nor can any one tell how long he thus REPOSED until he conceived the thought of 
acting; for no one saw Mm, no one approached him, and none can penetrate the mystery of his 
real essence." (Col. KENNEDY'S Hindoo Mythology) In conformity with this ancient legend, 
Vishnu is still represented as sleeping four months every year. Now, connect this story with the 
name of Noah, the man of "Rest," and with his personal history during the period of the flood, 
when the world was destroyed, when for forty days and forty nights all was chaos, when neither 
sun nor moon nor twinkling star appeared, when sea and sky were mingled, and all was one wide 


universal "ocean," on the bosom of which the patriarch floated, when there was no human being 
to "approach" him but those who were with him in the ark, and "the mystery of his real essence is 
penetrated" at once, "the holy name of that person" is ascertained, and his "mysterious slumber" 
fully accounted for. Now, wherever Noah is celebrated, whether by the name of Saturn, "the 
hidden one, "--for that name was applied to him as well as to Nimrod, on account of his having 
been "hidden" in the ark, in the "day of the Lord's fierce anger,' L -or, "Oannes," or "Janus," the 
"Man of the Sea," he is generally described in such a way as shows that he was looked upon as 
Diphues, "twice-born," or "regenerate." The "twice-born" Brahmins, who are all so many gods 
upon earth, by the very title they take to themselves, show that the god whom they represent, and 
to whose prerogatives they lay claim, had been known as the "twice-born" god. The connection 
of "regeneration" with the history of Noah, comes out with special evidence in the accounts 
handed down to us of the Mysteries as celebrated in Egypt. The most learned explorers of 
Egyptian antiquities, including Sir Gardiner Wilkinson, admit that the story of Noah was mixed 
up with the story of Osiris. The ship of Isis, and the coffin of Osiris, floating on the waters, point 
distinctly to that remarkable event. There were different periods, in different places in Egypt, 
when the fate of Osiris was lamented; and at one time there was more special reference to the 
personal history of "the mighty hunter before the Lord," and at another to the awful catastrophe 
through which Noah passed. In the great and solemn festival called "The Disappearance of 
Osiris," it is evident that it is Noah himself who was then supposed to have been lost. The time 
when Osiris was "shut up in his coffin," and when that coffin was set afloat on the waters, as 
stated by Plutarch, agrees exactly with the period when Noah entered the ark. That time was "the 
17th day of the month Athyr, when the overflowing of the Nile had ceased, when the nights were 
growing long and the days decreasing." The month Athyr was the second month after the 
autumnal equinox, at which time the civil year of the Jews and the patriarchs began. According 
to this statement, then, Osiris was "shut up in his coffin" on the 17th day of the second month of 
the patriarchal year. Compare this with the Scriptural account of Noah's entering into the ark, and 
it will be seen how remarkably they agree (Gen 7:11), "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, 
in the SECOND MONTH, in the SEVENTEENTH DAY of the month, were all the fountains of 
the great deep broken up; in the self- same day entered Noah into the ark." The period, too, that 
Osiris (otherwise Adonis) was believed to have been shut up in his coffin, was precisely the 
same as Noah was confined in the ark, a whole year. * 

* APOLLODORUS. THEOCRITUS, Idyll. Theocritus is speaking of Adonis as 
delivered by Venus from Acheron, or the infernal regions, after being there for a 
year; but as the scene is laid in Egypt, it is evident that it is Osiris he refers to, as 
he was the Adonis of the Egyptians. 

Now, the statements of Plutarch demonstrate that, as Osiris at this festival was looked upon as 
dead and buried when put into his ark or coffin, and committed to the deep, so, when at length he 
came out of it again, that new state was regarded as a state of "new life," or 

* PLUTARCH, De hide et Osiride. It was in the character of Pthah-Sokari- Osiris 
that he was represented as having been thus 'buried" in the waters. In his own 
character, simply as Osiris, he had another burial altogether. 

There seems every reason to believe that by the ark and the flood God actually gave to the 
patriarchal saints, and especially to righteous Noah, a vivid typical representation of the power of 
the blood and Spirit of Christ, at once in saving from wrath, and cleansing from all sin- -a 


representation which was a most cheering "seal" and confirmation to the faith of those who 
really believed. To this Peter seems distinctly to allude, when he says, speaking of this very 
event, "The like figure whereunto baptism doth also now save us." Whatever primitive truth the 
Chaldean priests held, they utterly perverted and corrupted it. They willingly overlooked the fact, 
that it was "the righteousness of the faith" which Noah "had before" the flood, that carried him 
safely through the avenging waters of that dread catastrophe, and ushered him, as it were, from 
the womb of the ark, by a new birth, into a new world, when on the ark resting on Mount Ararat, 
he was released from his long confinement. They led their votaries to believe that, if they only 
passed through the baptismal waters, and the penances therewith connected, that of itself would 
make them like the second father of mankind, "Diphueis," "twice-born," or "regenerate," would 
entitle them to all the privileges of "righteous" Noah, and give them that "new birth" 
(palingenesia) which their consciences told them they so much needed. The Papacy acts on 
precisely the same principle; and from this very source has its doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
been derived, about which so much has been written and so many controversies been waged. Let 
men contend as they may, this, and this only, will be found to be the real origin of the anti- 
Scriptural dogma. * 

* There have been considerable speculations about the meaning of the name 
Shinar, as applied to the region of which Babylon was the capital. Do not the facts 
above stated cast light on it? What so likely a derivation of this name as to derive 
it from "shene," "to repeat," and "naar," "childhood." The land of "Shinar," then, 
according to this view, is just the land of the "Regenerator." 

The reader has seen already how faithfully Rome has copied the Pagan exorcism in connection 
with baptism. All the other peculiarities attending the Romish baptism, such as the use of salt, 
spittle, chrism, or anointing with oil, and marking the forehead with the sign of the cross, are 
equally Pagan. Some of the continental advocates of Rome have admitted that some of these at 
least have not been derived from Scripture. Thus Jodocus Tiletanus of Louvaine, defending the 
doctrine of "Unwritten Tradition," does not hesitate to say, "We are not satisfied with that which 
the apostles or the Gospel do declare, but we say that, as well before as after, there are divers 
matters of importance and weight accepted and received out of a doctrine which is nowhere set 
forth in writing. For we do blesse the water wherewith we baptize, and the oyle wherewith we 
annoynt; yea, and besides that, him that is christened. And (I pray you) out of what Scripture 
have we learned the same? Have we it not of a secret and unwritten ordinance? And further, what 
Scripture hath taught us to grease with oyle? Yea, I pray you, whence cometh it, that we do dype 
the childe three times in the water? Doth it not come out of this hidden and undisclosed doctrine, 
which our forefathers have received closely without any curiosity, and do observe it still." This 
learned divine of Louvaine, of course, maintains that "the hidden and undisclosed doctrine" of 
which he speaks, was the "unwritten word" handed down through the channel of infallibility, 
from the Apostles of Christ to his own time. But, after what we have already seen, the reader will 
probably entertain a different opinion of the source from which the hidden and undisclosed 
doctrine must have come. And, indeed, Father Newman himself admits, in regard to "holy water" 
(that is, water impregnated with "salt," and consecrated), and many other things that were, as he 
says, "the very instruments and appendages of demon- worship "--that they were all of "Pagan" 
origin, and "sanctified by adoption into the Church." What plea, then, what palliation can he 
offer, for so extraordinary an adoption? Why, this: that the Church had "confidence in the power 
of Christianity to resist the infection of evil," and to transmute them to "an evangelical use." 
What right had the Church to entertain any such "confidence"? What fellowship could light have 


with darkness? what concord between Christ and Belial? Let the history of the Church bear 
testimony to the vanity, yea, impiety of such a hope. Let the progress of our inquiries shed light 
upon the same. At the present stage, there is only one of the concomitant rites of baptism to 
which I will refer--viz., the use of 'spittle" in that ordinance; and an examination of the very 
words of the Roman ritual, in applying it, will prove that its use in baptism must have come from 
the Mysteries. The following is the account of its application, as given by Bishop Hay: "The 
priest recites another exorcism, and at the end of it touches the ear and nostrils of the person to 
be baptised with a little spittle, saying, 'Ephpheta, that is, Be thou opened into an odour of 
sweetness; but be thou put to flight, O Devil, for the judgment of God will be at hand.'" Now, 
surely the reader will at once ask, what possible, what conceivable connection can there be 
between spittle, and an "odour of sweetness"! If the secret doctrine of the Chaldean mysteries be 
set side by side with this statement, it will be seen that, absurd and nonsensical as this collocation 
of terms may appear, it was not at random that "spittle" and an "odour of sweetness" were 
brought together. We have seen already how thoroughly Paganism was acquainted with the 
attributes and work of the promised Messiah, though all that acquaintance with these grand 
themes was used for the purpose of corrupting the minds of mankind, and keeping them in 
spiritual bondage. We have now to see that, as they were well aware of the existence of the Holy 
Spirit, so, intellectually, they were just as well acquainted with His work, though their knowledge 
on that subject was equally debased and degraded. Servius, in his comments upon Virgil's First 
Georgic, after quoting the well known expression, "Mystica vannus Iacchi," "the mystic fan of 
Bacchus," says that that "mystic fan" symbolised the "purifying of souls." Now, how could the 
fan be a symbol of the purification of souls? The answer is, The fan is an instrument for 
producing "wind"; * and in Chaldee, as has been already observed, it is one and the same word 
which signifies "wind" and the "Holy Spirit." 

* There is an evident allusion to the "mystic fan" of the Babylonian god, in the 
doom of Babylon, as pronounced by Jeremiah 51:1, 2: "Thus saith the Lord, 
Behold, I will raise up against Babylon, and against them that dwell in the midst 
of them that rise up against me, a destroying wind; and will send unto Babylon 
fanners, that shall fan her, and shall empty her land." 

There can be no doubt, that, from the very beginning, the "wind" was one of the Divine 
patriarchal emblems by which the power of the Holy Ghost was shadowed forth, even as our 
Lord Jesus Christ said to Nicodemus, "The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the 
sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth: so is every one that is born 
of the Spirit." Hence, when Bacchus was represented with "the mystic fan," that was to declare 
him to be the mighty One with whom was "the residue of the Spirit." Hence came the idea of 
purifying the soul by means of the wind, according to the description of Virgil, who represents 
the stain and pollution of sin as being removed in this very way: 

"For this are various penances enjoined, 
And some are hung to bleach upon the WIND." 

Hence the priests of Jupiter (who was originally just another form of Bacchus), (see Fig. 35) , 
were called Flamens, * -- that is Breathers, or bestowers of the Holy Ghost, by breathing upon 
their votaries. 

* From "Flo," "I breathe." 


Fig. 35: Cupid with Wine-Cup and Ivy Garland of Bacchus 

From Pompeii, vol. ii. p. 150. 

The reader will remember that Jupiter, as "Jupiter puer," or "Jupiter the boy," 
was worshipped in the arms of the goddess Fortuna, just as Ninus was 
worshipped in the arms of the Babylonian goddess, or Horus in the arms of Isis 
(see Ch. II. Section ID . Moreover, Cupid, who, as being the son of Jupiter, is 
Vejovis - that is, as we learn from Ovid (vol. iii. p. 179, in a Note to Fasti, lib. 
iii. v. 408), "Young Jupiter" - is represented, as in the above cut, not only with 
the wine-cup of Bacchus, but with the Ivy garland, the distinctive mark of the 
same divinity, around him. 

Now, in the Mysteries, the "spittle" was just another symbol for the same thing. In Egypt, 
through which the Babylonian system passed to Western Europe, the name of the "Pure or 
Purifying Spirit" was "Rekh" (BUNSEN). But "Rekh" also signified "spittle" (PARKHURST'S 
Lexicon); so that to anoint the nose and ears of the initiated with "spittle," according to the 
mystic system, was held to be anointing them with the "Purifying Spirit." That Rome in adopting 
the "spittle" actually copied from some Chaldean ritual in which "spittle" was the appointed 
emblem of the "Spirit," is plain from the account which she gives in her own recognised 
formularies of the reason for anointing the ears with it. The reason for anointing the ears with 
"spittle" says Bishop Hay, is because "by the grace of baptism, the ears of our soul are opened to 
hear the Word of God, and the inspirations of His Holy Spirit." But what, it may be asked, has 
the "spittle" to do with the "odour of sweetness"? I answer, The very word "Rekh," which 
signified the "Holy Spirit," and was visibly represented by the "spittle," was intimately connected 
with "Rikh," which signifies a "fragrant smell," or "odour of sweetness." Thus, a knowledge of 
the Mysteries gives sense and a consistent meaning to the cabalistic saying addressed by the 
Papal baptiser to the person about to be baptised, when the "spittle" is daubed on his nose and 
ears, which otherwise would have no meaning at all- -"Ephpheta, Be thou opened into an odour 
of sweetness." While this was the primitive truth concealed under the "spittle," yet the whole 
spirit of Paganism was so opposed to the spirituality of the patriarchal religion, and indeed 


intended to make it void, and to draw men utterly away from it, while pretending to do homage 
to it, that among the multitude in general the magic use of "spittle" became the symbol of the 
grossest superstition. Theocritus shows with what debasing rites it was mixed up in Sicily and 
Greece; and Persius thus holds up to scorn the people of Rome in his day for their reliance on it 
to avert the influence of the "evil eye": 

"Our superstitions with our life begin; 

The obscene old grandam, or the next of kin, 

The new-born infant from the cradle takes, 

And first of spittle a lustration makes; 

Then in the spawl her middle finger dips, 

Anoints the temples, forehead, and the lips, 

Pretending force of magic to prevent 

By virtue of her nasty excrement. "--DRYDEN 

Ffc. 35. 

Fig. 36: Symbols of Nimrod and Baal-Berith 

From BRYANT: the first figure, the divided bull, is from vol. iii. p. 303; the second, the god on 
the fish, from the same vol., p. 338. The former is just another symbol of that which is represented 
by the mighty tree cut asunder (see Christmas and Lady-day ). That tree represented Nimrod as 
"the mighty one" cut in pieces in the midst of his power and glory. The divided man-bull 
symbolises him as "The prince" who was cut asunder in like manner; for the name for a prince and 
a bull is the same. The fish over the bull shows the transformation he was supposed to undergo 
when put to death by his enemies; for the story of Melikerta, who with his mother Ino was cast 
into the sea, and became a sea-god (SMITH'S Class. Diet., "Athamas," p. 100), is just another 
version of the story of Bacchus, for Ino was the foster-mother of Bacchus (SMITH, sub voce 
"Dionysus," p. 226). Now, on the second medal, Melikerta, under the name of Palaemon, is 
represented as triumphantly riding on the fish, his sorrows being over, with the fir-tree, or pine, 
the emblem of Baal-Berith, "Lord of the Covenant," as his ensign. This, compared with what is 
stated ... about the Christmas-tree, shows how the fir-tree came to be recognised in the character of 
the Christmas-tree. The name Ghelas above the divided bull and the fish is equivocal. As applied 
to the fish, it comes from Ghela, "to exult or leap for joy," as dolphins and such like fished do in 
the sea; as applied to the divinity, whom both the fish and the bull represented, it comes from 
Ghela, "to reveal," for that divinity was the "revealer of goodness and truth" (WILKINSON, vol. 
iv. p. 189). 

While thus far we have seen how the Papal baptism is just a reproduction of the Chaldean, there 
is still one other point to be noticed, which makes the demonstration complete. That point is 


contained in the following tremendous curse fulminated against a man who committed the 
unpardonable offence of leaving the Church of Rome, and published grave and weighty reasons 
for so doing: "May the Father, who creates man, curse him! May the Son, who suffered for us, 
curse him! May the Holy Ghost who suffered for us in baptism, curse him!" I do not stop to show 
how absolutely and utterly opposed such a curse as this is to the whole spirit of the Gospel. But 
what I call the reader's attention to is the astounding statement that "the Holy Ghost suffered for 
us in baptism." Where in the whole compass of Scripture could warrant be found for such an 
assertion as this, or anything that could even suggest it? But let the reader revert to the 
Babylonian account of the personality of the Holy Ghost, and the amount of blasphemy 
contained in this language will be apparent. According to the Chaldean doctrine, Semiramis, the 
wife of Ninus or Nimrod, when exalted to divinity under the name of the Queen of Heaven, 
came, as we have seen, to be worshipped as Juno, the "Dove"--in other words, the Holy Spirit 
incarnate. Now, when her husband, for his blasphemous rebellion against the majesty of heaven, 
was cut off, for a season it was a time of tribulation also for her. The fragments of ancient history 
that have come down to us give an account of her trepidation and flight, to save herself from her 
adversaries. In the fables of the mythology, this flight was mystically represented in accordance 
with what was attributed to her husband. The bards of Greece represented Bacchus, when 
overcome by his enemies, as taking refuge in the depths of the ocean ( see Fig. 36 ). Thus, Homer: 

"In a mad mood, while Bacchus blindly raged, 
Lycurgus drove his trembling bands, confused, 

O'er the vast plains of Nusa. They in haste 

Threw down their sacred implements, and fled 

In fearful dissipation. Bacchus saw 

Rout upon rout, and, lost in wild dismay, 

Plunged in the deep. Here Thetis in her arms 

Received him shuddering at the dire event." 

In Egypt, as we have seen, Osiris, as identified with Noah, was represented, when overcome by 
his grand enemy Typhon, or the "Evil One," as passing through the waters. The poets represented 
Semiramis as sharing in his distress, and likewise seeking safety in the same way. We have seen 
already, that, under the name of Astarte, she was said to have come forth from the wondrous egg 
that was found floating on the waters of the Euphrates. Now Manilius tells, in his Astronomical 
Poetics, what induced her to take refuge in these waters. "Venus plunged into the Babylonia 
waters," says he, "to shun the fury of the snake- footed Typhon." When Venus Urania, or Dione, 
the "Heavenly Dove," plunged in deep distress into these waters of Babylon, be it observed what, 
according to the Chaldean doctrine, this amounted to. It was neither more nor less than saying 
that the Holy Ghost incarnate in deep tribulation entered these waters, and that on purpose that 
these waters might be fit, not only by the temporary abode of the Messiah in the midst of them, 
but by the Spirit's efficacy thus imparted to them, for giving new life and regeneration, by 
baptism, to the worshippers of the Chaldean Madonna. We have evidence that the purifying 
virtue of the waters, which in Pagan esteem had such efficacy in cleansing from guilt and 
regenerating the soul, was derived in part from the passing of the Mediatorial god, the sun-god 
and god of fire, through these waters during his humiliation and sojourn in the midst of them; 
and that the Papacy at this day retains the very custom which had sprung up from that 
persuasion. So far as heathenism is concerned, the following extracts from Potter and Athenaeus 
speak distinctly enough: "Every person," says the former, "who came to the solemn sacrifices [of 
the Greeks] was purified by water. To which end, at the entrance of the temples there was 


commonly placed a vessel full of holy water." How did this water get its holiness? This water 
"was consecrated," says Athenaeus, "by putting into it a BURNING TORCH taken from the 
altar." The burning torch was the express symbol of the god of fire; and by the light of this torch, 
so indispensable for consecrating "the holy water," we may easily see whence came one great 
part of the purifying virtue of "the water of the loud resounding sea," which was held to be so 
efficacious in purging away the guilt and stain of sin, *--even from the sun-god having taken 
refuge in its waters. 

* "All human ills," says Euripides, in a well known passage, "are washed away by 
the sea." 

Now this very same method is used in the Romish Church for consecrating the water for 
baptism. The unsuspicious testimony of Bishop Hay leaves no doubt on this point: "It" [the water 
kept in the baptismal font], says he, "is blessed on the eve of Pentecost, because it is the Holy 
Ghost who gives to the waters of baptism the power and efficacy of sanctifying our souls, and 
because the baptism of Christ is 'with the Holy Ghost, and with fire' (Matt 3:11). In blessing the 
waters a LIGHTED TORCH is put into the font." Here, then, it is manifest that the baptismal 
regenerating water of Rome is consecrated just as the regenerating and purifying water of the 
Pagans was. Of what avail is it for Bishop Hay to say, with the view of sanctifying superstition 
and "making apostacy plausible," that this is done "to represent the fire of Divine love, which is 
communicated to the soul by baptism, and the light of good example, which all who are baptised 
ought to give." This is the fair face put on the matter; but the fact still remains that while the 
Romish doctrine in regard to baptism is purely Pagan, in the ceremonies connected with the 
Papal baptism one of the essential rites of the ancient fire-worship is still practised at this day, 
just as it was practised by the worshippers of Bacchus, the Babylonian Messiah. As Rome keeps 
up the remembrance of the fire-god passing through the waters and giving virtue to them, so 
when it speaks of the "Holy Ghost suffering for us in baptism," it in like manner commemorates 
the part which Paganism assigned to the Babylonian goddess when she plunged into the waters. 
The sorrows of Nimrod, or Bacchus, when in the waters were meritorious sorrows. The sorrows 
of his wife, in whom the Holy Ghost miraculously dwelt, were the same. The sorrows of the 
Madonna, then, when in these waters, fleeing from Typhon's rage, were the birth-throes by 
which children were born to God. And thus, even in the Far West, Chalchivitlycue, the Mexican 
"goddess of the waters," and "mother" of all the regenerate, was represented as purging the new- 
born infant from original sin, and "bringing it anew into the world." Now, the Holy Ghost was 
idolatrously worshipped in Babylon under the form of a "Dove." Under the same form, and with 
equal idolatry, the Holy Ghost is worshipped in Rome. When, therefore, we read, in opposition 
to every Scripture principle, that "the Holy Ghost suffered for us in baptism" surely it must now 
be manifest who is that Holy Ghost that is really intended. It is no other than Semiramis, the very 
incarnation of lust and all uncleanness. 

Section II 
Justification by Works 

The worshippers of Nimrod and his queen were looked upon as regenerated and purged from sin 
by baptism, which baptism received its virtue from the sufferings of these two great Babylonian 
divinities. But yet in regard to justification, the Chaldean doctrine was that it was by works and 
merits of men themselves that they must be justified and accepted of God. The following 


remarks of Christie in his observations appended to Ouvaroff s Eleusinian Mysteries, show that 
such was the case: "Mr. Ouvaroff has suggested that one of the great objects of the Mysteries 
was the presenting to fallen man the means of his return to God. These means were the cathartic 
virtues--(i.e., the virtues by which sin is removed), by the exercise of which a corporeal life was 
to be vanquished. Accordingly the Mysteries were termed Teletae, 'perfections,' because they 
were supposed to induce a perfectness of life. Those who were purified by them were styled 
Teloumenoi and Tetelesmenoi, that is, brought... to perfection,' which depended on the exertions 
of the individual." In the Metamorphosis of Apuleius, who was himself initiated in the mysteries 
of Isis, we find this same doctrine of human merits distinctly set forth. Thus the goddess is 
herself represented as addressing the hero of his tale: "If you shall be found to DESERVE the 
protection of my divinity by sedulous obedience, religious devotion and inviolable chastity, you 
shall be sensible that it is possible for me, and me alone, to extend your life beyond the limits 
that have been appointed to it by your destiny." When the same individual has received a proof 
of the supposed favour of the divinity, thus do the onlookers express their congratulations: 
"Happy, by Hercules! and thrice blessed he to have MERITED, by the innocence and probity of 
his past life, such special patronage of heaven." Thus was it in life. At death, also, the grand 
passport into the unseen world was still through the merits of men themselves, although the name 
of Osiris was, as we shall by-and-by see, given to those who departed in the faith. "When the 
bodies of persons of distinction" [in Egypt], says Wilkinson, quoting Porphyry, "were embalmed, 
they took out the intestines and put them into a vessel, over which (after some other rites had 
been performed for the dead) one of the embalmers pronounced an invocation to the sun in 
behalf of the deceased." The formula, according to Euphantus, who translated it from the original 
into Greek, was as follows: "O thou Sun, our sovereign lord! and all ye Deities who have given 
life to man, receive me, and grant me an abode with the eternal gods. During the whole course of 
my life I have scrupulously worshipped the gods my father taught me to adore; I have ever 
honoured my parents, who begat this body; I have killed no one; I have not defrauded any, nor 
have I done any injury to any man." Thus the merits, the obedience, or the innocence of man was 
the grand plea. The doctrine of Rome in regard to the vital article of a sinner's justification is the 
very same. Of course this of itself would prove little in regard to the affiliation of the two 
systems, the Babylonian and the Roman; for, from the days of Cain downward, the doctrine of 
human merit and of self-justification has everywhere been indigenous in the heart of depraved 
humanity. But, what is worthy of notice in regard to this subject is, that in the two systems, it 
was symbolised in precisely the same way. In the Papal legends it is taught that St. Michael the 
Archangel has committed to him the balance of God's justice, and that in the two opposite scales 
of that balance the merits and the demerits of the departed are put that they may be fairly 
weighed, the one over against the other, and that as the scale turns to the favourable or 
unfavourable side they may be justified or condemned as the case may be. Now, the Chaldean 
doctrine of justification, as we get light on it from the monuments of Egypt, is symbolised in 
precisely the same way, except that in the land of Ham the scales of justice were committed to 
the charge of the god Anubis instead of St. Michael the Archangel, and that the good deeds and 
the bad seem to have been weighed separately, and a distinct record made of each, so that when 
both were summed up and the balance struck, judgment was pronounced accordingly. Wilkinson 
states that Anubis and his scales are often represented; and that in some cases there is some 
difference in the details. But it is evident from his statements, that the principle in all is the same. 
The following is the account which he gives of one of these judgment scenes, previous to the 
admission of the dead to Paradise: "Cerberus is present as the guardian of the gates, near which 


the scales of justice are erected; and Anubis, the director of the weight, having placed a vase 
representing the good actions of the deceased in one scale, and the figure or emblem of truth in 
the other, proceeds to ascertain his claims for admission. If, on being weighed, he is found 
wanting, he is rejected, and Osiris, the judge of the dead, inclining his sceptre in token of 
condemnation, pronounces judgment upon him, and condemns his soul to return to earth under 
the form of a pig or some unclean animal... But if, when the SUM of his deeds are recorded by 
Thoth [who stands by to mark the results of the different weighings of Anubis], his virtues so far 
PREDOMINATE as to entitle him to admission to the mansions of the blessed, Horus, taking in 
his hand the tablet of Thoth, introduces him to the presence of Osiris, who, in his palace, 
attended by Isis and Nepthys, sits on his throne in the midst of the waters, from which rises the 
lotus, bearing upon its expanded flowers the four Genii of Amenti." The same mode of 
symbolising the justification by works had evidently been in use in Babylon itself; and, therefore, 
there was great force in the Divine handwriting on the wall, when the doom of Belshazzar went 
forth: "Tekel," "Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting." In the Parsee system, 
which has largely borrowed from Chaldea, the principle of weighing the good deeds over against 
the bad deeds is fully developed. "For three days after dissolution," says Vaux, in his Nineveh 
and Persepolis, giving an account of Parsee doctrines in regard to the dead, "the soul is supposed 
to flit round its tenement of clay, in hopes of reunion; on the fourth, the Angel Seroch appears, 
and conducts it to the bridge of Chinevad. On this structure, which they assert connects heaven 
and earth, sits the Angel of Justice, to weigh the actions of mortals; when the good deeds prevail, 
the soul is met on the bridge by a dazzling figure, which says, 'I am thy good angel, I was pure 
originally, but thy good deeds have rendered me purer'; and passing his hand over the neck of the 
blessed soul, leads it to Paradise. If iniquities preponderate, the soul is meet by a hideous spectre, 
which howls out, 'I am thy evil genius; I was impure from the first, but thy misdeeds have made 
me fouler; through thee we shall remain miserable until the resurrection'; the sinning soul is then 
dragged away to hell, where Ahriman sits to taunt it with its crimes." Such is the doctrine of 
Parseeism. The same is the case in China, where Bishop Hurd, giving an account of the Chinese 
descriptions of the infernal regions, and of Ihe figures that refer to them, says, "One of them 
always represents a sinner in a pair of scales, with his iniquities in the one, and his good works in 
another." "We meet with several such representations," he adds, "in the Grecian mythology." 
Thus does Sir J. F. Davis describe the operation of the principle in China: "In a work of some 
note on morals, called Merits and Demerits Examined, a man is directed to keep a debtor and 
creditor account with himself of the acts of each day, and at the end of the year to wind it up. If 
the balance is in his favour, it serves as the foundation of a stock of merits for the ensuing year: 
and if against him, it must be liquidated by future good deeds. Various lists and comparative 
tables are given of both good and bad actions in the several relations of life; and benevolence is 
strongly inculcated in regard first to man, and, secondly, to the brute creation. To cause another's 
death is reckoned at one hundred on the side of demerit; while a single act of charitable relief 
counts as one on the other side... To save a person's life ranks in the above work as an exact set- 
off to the opposite act of taking it away; and it is said that this deed of merit will prolong a 
person's life twelve years." 

While such a mode of justification is, on the one hand, in the very nature of the case, utterly 
demoralising, there never could by means of it, on the other, be in the bosom of any man whose 
conscience is aroused, any solid feeling of comfort, or assurance as to his prospects in the eternal 
world. Who could ever tell, however good he might suppose himself to be, whether the "sum of 
his good actions" would or would not counterbalance the amount of sins and transgressions that 


his conscience might charge against him. How very different the Scriptural, the god-like plan of 
"justification by faith," and "faith alone, without the deeds of the law," absolutely irrespective of 
human merits, simply and solely through the "righteousness of Christ, that is unto all and upon 
all them that believe," that delivers at once and for ever "from all condemnation," those who 
accept of the offered Saviour, and by faith are vitally united to Him. It is not the will of our 
Father in heaven, that His children in this world should be ever in doubt and darkness as to the 
vital point of their eternal salvation. Even a genuine saint, no doubt, may for a season, if need be, 
be in heaviness through manifold temptations, but such is not the natural, the normal state of a 
healthful Christian, of one who knows the fulness and the freeness of the blessings of the Gospel 
of peace. God has laid the most solid foundation for all His people to say, with John, "We have 
KNOWN and believed the love which God hath to us" (1 John 4:16); or with Paul, "I am 
PERSUADED that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things 
present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to 
separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:38,39). But this no man can 
every say, who "goes about to establish his own righteousness" (Rom 10:3), who seeks, in any 
shape, to be justified by works. Such assurance, such comfort, can come only from a simple and 
believing reliance on the free, unmerited grace of God, given in and along with Christ, the 
unspeakable gift of the Father's love. It was this that made Luther's spirit to be, as he himself 
declared, "as free as a flower of the field," when, single and alone, he went up to the Diet of 
Worms, to confront all the prelates and potentates there convened to condemn the doctrine which 
he held. It was this that in every age made the martyrs go with such sublime heroism not only to 
prison but to death. It is this that emancipates the soul, restores the true dignity of humanity, and 
cuts up by the roots all the imposing pretensions of priestcraft. It is this only that can produce a 
life of loving, filial, hearty obedience to the law and commandments of God; and that, when 
nature fails, and when the king of terrors is at hand, can enable poor, guilty sons of men, with the 
deepest sense of unworthiness, yet to say, "O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy 
victory? Thanks be unto God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord" (1 Cor 

Now, to all such confidence in God, such assurance of salvation, spiritual despotism in every 
age, both Pagan and Papal, has ever shown itself unfriendly. Its grand object has always been to 
keep the souls of its votaries away from direct and immediate intercourse with a lving and 
merciful Saviour, and consequently from assurance of His favour, to inspire a sense of the 
necessity of human mediation, and so to establish itself on the ruins of the hopes and the 
happiness of the world. Considering the pretensions which the Papacy makes to absolute 
infallibility, and the supernatural powers which it attributes to the functions of its priests, in 
regard to regeneration and the forgiveness of sins, it might have been supposed, as a matter of 
course, that all its adherents would have been encouraged to rejoice in the continual assurance of 
their personal salvation. But the very contrary is the fact. After all its boastings and high 
pretensions, perpetual doubt on the subject of a man's salvation, to his life's end, is inculcated as 
a duty; it being peremptorily decreed as an article of faith by the Council of Trent, "That no man 
can know with infallible assurance of faith that he HAS OBTAINED the grace of God." This 
very decree of Rome, while directly opposed to the Word of God, stamps its own lofty claims 
with the brand of imposture; for if no man who has been regenerated by its baptism, and who has 
received its absolution from sin, can yet have any certain assurance after all that "the grace of 
God" has been conferred upon him, what can be the worth of its opus operaturnt Yet, in seeking 
to keep its devotees in continual doubt and uncertainty as to their final state, it is "wise after its 


generation." In the Pagan system, it was the priest alone who could at all pretend to anticipate the 
operation of the scales of Anubis; and, in the confessional, there was from time to time, after a 
sort, a mimic rehearsal of the dread weighing that was to take place at last in the judgment scene 
before the tribunal of Osiris. There the priest sat in judgment on the good deeds and bad deeds of 
his penitents; and, as his power and influence were founded to a large extent on the mere 
principle of slavish dread, he took care that the scale should generally turn in the wrong 
direction, that they might be more subservient to his will in casting in a due amount of good 
works into the opposite scale. As he was the grand judge of what these works should be, it was 
his interest to appoint what should be most for the selfish aggrandisement of himself, or the glory 
of his order; and yet so to weigh and counterweigh merits and demerits, that there should always 
be left a large balance to be settled, not only by the man himself, but by his heirs. If any man had 
been allowed to believe himself beforehand absolutely sure of glory, the priests might have been 
in danger of being robbed of their dues after death- -an issue by all means to be guarded against. 
Now, the priests of Rome have in every respect copied after the priests of Anubis, the god of the 
scales. In the confessional, when they have an object to gain, they make the sins and 
transgressions good weight; and then, when they have a man of influence, or power, or wealth to 
deal with, they will not give him the slightest hope till round sums of money, or the founding of 
an abbey, or some other object on which they have set their heart, be cast into the other scale. In 
the famous letter of Pere La Chaise, the confessor of Louis XIV of France, giving an account of 
the method which he adopted to gain the consent of that licentious monarch to the revocation of 
the Edict of Nantes, by which such cruelties were inflicted on his innocent Huguenot subjects, 
we see how the fear of the scales of St. Michael operated in bringing about the desired result: 
"Many a time since," says the accomplished Jesuit, referring to an atrocious sin of which the king 
had been guilty, "many a time since, when I have had him at confession, / have shook hell about 
his ears, and made him sigh, fear and tremble, before I would give him absolution. By this I saw 
that he had still an inclination to me, and was willing to be under my government; so I set the 
baseness of the action before him by telling the whole story, and how wicked it was, and that it 
could not be forgiven till he had done some good action to BALANCE that, and expiate the 
crime. Whereupon he at last asked me what he must do. I told him that he must root out all 
heretics from his kingdom." This was the "good action" to be cast into the scale of St. Michael 
the Archangel, to "BALANCE" his crime. The king, wicked as he was-- sore against his will- 
consented; the "good action" was cast in, the "heretics" were extirpated; and the king was 
absolved. But yet the absolution was not such but that, when he went the way of all the earth, 
there was still much to be cast in before the scales could be fairly adjusted. Thus Paganism and 
Popery alike "make merchandise of the souls of men" (Rev 18:13). Thus the one with the scales 
of Anubis, the other with the scales of St. Michael, exactly answer to the Divine description of 
Ephraim in his apostacy: "Ephraim is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand" (Hosea 
12:7). The Anubis of the Egyptians was precisely the same as the Mercury of the Greeks--the 
"god of thieves." St. Michael, in the hands of Rome, answers exactly to the same character. By 
means of him and his scales, and their doctrine of human merits, they have made what they call 
the house of God to be nothing else than a "den of thieves." To rob men of their money is bad, 
but infinitely worse to cheat them also of their souls. 

Into the scales of Anubis, the ancient Pagans, by way of securing their justification, were 
required to put not merely good deeds, properly so called, but deeds of austerity and self- 
mortification inflicted on their own persons, for averting the wrath of the gods. The scales of St. 
Michael inflexibly required to be balanced in the very same way. The priests of Rome teach that 


when sin is forgiven, the punishment is not thereby fully taken away. However perfect may be 
the pardon that God, through the priests, may bestow, yet punishment, greater or less, still 
remains behind, which men must endure, and that to "satisfy the justice of God." Again and again 
has it been shown that man cannot do anything to satisfy the justice of God, that to that justice he 
is hopelessly indebted, that he "has" absolutely "nothing to pay"; and more than that, that there is 
no need that he should attempt to pay one farthing; for that, in behalf of all who believe, Christ 
has finished transgression, made an end of sin, and made all the satisfaction to the broken law 
that that law could possibly demand. Still Rome insists that every man must be punished for his 
own sins, and that God cannot be satisfied * without groans and sighs, lacerations of the flesh, 
tortures of the body, and penances without number, on the part of the offender, however broken 
in heart, however contrite that offender may be. 

* Bishop HAY'S Sincere Christian. The words of Bishop Hay are: "But He 
absolutely demands that, by penitential works, we PUNISH ourselves for our 
shocking ingratitude, and satisfy the Divine justice for the abuse of His mercy." 
The established modes of "punishment," as is well known, are just such as are 
described in the text. 

Now, looking simply at the Scripture, this perverse demand for self-torture on the part of those 
for whom Christ has made a complete and perfect atonement, might seem exceedingly strange; 
but, looking at the real character of the god whom the Papacy has set up for the worship of its 
deluded devotees, there is nothing in the least strange about it. That god is Moloch, the god of 
barbarity and blood. Moloch signifies "king"; and Nimrod was the first after the flood that 
violated the patriarchal system, and set up as "king" over his fellows. At first he was worshipped 
as the "revealer of goodness and truth," but by-and-by his worship was made to correspond with 
his dark and forbidding countenance and complexion. The name Moloch originally suggested 
nothing of cruelty or terror; but now the well known rites associated with that name have made it 
for ages a synonym for all that is most revolting to the heart of humanity, and amply justify the 
description of Milton (Paradise Lost): 

"First Moloch, horrid king, besmeared with blood 

Of human sacrifice, and parents' tears, 

Though, for the noise of drums and timbrels loud, 

Their children's cries unheard, that passed through fire 

To his grim idol." 

In almost every land the bloody worship prevailed; "horrid cruelty," hand in hand with abject 
superstition, filled not only "the dark places of the earth," but also regions that boasted of their 
enlightenment. Greece, Rome, Egypt, Phoenicia, Assyria, and our own land under the savage 
Druids, at one period or other in their history, worshipped the same god and in the same way. 
Human victims were his most acceptable offerings; human groans and wailings were the 
sweetest music in his ears; human tortures were believed to delight his heart. His image bore, as 
the symbol of "majesty," a whip, and with whips his worshippers, at some of his festivals, were 
required unmercifully to scourge themselves. "After the ceremonies of sacrifice," says 
Herodotus, speaking of the feast of Isis at Busiris, "the whole assembly, to the amount of many 
thousands, scourge themselves; but in whose honour they do this I am not at liberty to disclose." 
This reserve Herodotus generally uses, out of respect to his oath as an initiated man; but 
subsequent researches leave no doubt as to the god "in whose honour" the scourgings took place. 
In Pagan Rome the worshippers of Isis observed the same practice in honour of Osiris. In 


Greece, Apollo, the Delian god, who was identical with Osiris, * was propitiated with similar 
penances by the sailors who visited his shrine, as we learn from the following lines of 
Callimachus in his hymn to Delos: 

"Soon as they reach thy soundings, down at once 

They drop slack sails and all the naval gear. 

The ship is moored; nor do the crew presume 

To quit thy sacred limits, till they've passed 

A fearful penance; with the galling whip 

Lashed thrice around thine altar." 

* We have seen already, that the Egyptian Horus was just a new incarnation of 
Osiris or Nimrod. Now, Herodotus calls Horus by the name of Apollo. Diodorus 
Siculus, also, says that "Horus, the son of Isis, is interpreted to be Apollo." 
Wilkinson seems, on one occasion, to call this identity of Horus and Apollo in 
question; but he elsewhere admits that the story of Apollo's "combat with the 
serpent Pytho is evidently derived from the Egyptian mythology," where the 
allusion is to the representation of Horus piercing the snake with a spear. From 
divers considerations, it may be shown that this conclusion is correct: 1. Horus, or 
Osiris, was the sun-god, so was Apollo. 2. Osiris, whom Horus represented, was 
the great Revealer; the Pythian Apollo was the god of oracles. 3. Osiris, in the 
character of Horus, was born when his mother was said to be persecuted by the 
malice of her enemies. Latona, the mother of Apollo, was a fugitive for a similar 
reason when Apollo was born. 4. Horus, according to one version of the myth, 
was said, like Osiris, to have been cut in pieces (PLUTARCH, De hide). In the 
classic story of Greece, this part of the myth of Apollo was generally kept in the 
background; and he was represented as victor in the conflict with the serpent; but 
even there it was sometimes admitted that he had suffered a violent death, for by 
Porphyry he is said to have been slain by the serpent, and Pythagoras affirmed 
that he had seen his tomb at Tripos in Delphi (BRYANT). 5. Horus was the war- 
god. Apollo was represented in the same way as the great god represented in 
Layard, with the bow and arrow, who was evidently the Babylonian war-god, 
Apollo's well known title of "Arcitenens,"--"the bearer of the bow," having 
evidently been borrowed from that source. Fuss tells us that Apollo was regarded 
as the inventor of the art of shooting with the bow, which identifies him with 
Sagittarius, whose origin we have already seen. 6. Lastly, from Ovid (Metam.) we 
learn that, before engaging with Python, Apollo had used his arrows only on 
fallow-deer, stags, &c. All which sufficiently proves his substantial identification 
with the mighty Hunter of Babel. 

Over and above the scourgings, there were also slashings and cuttings of the flesh required as 
propitiatory rites on the part of his worshippers. "In the solemn celebration of the Mysteries," 
says Julius Firmicus, "all things in order had to be done, which the youth either did or suffered at 
his death." Osiris was cut in pieces; therefore, to imitate his fate, so far as living men might do 
so, they were required to cut and wound their own bodies. Therefore, when the priests of Baal 
contended with Elijah, to gain the favour of their god, and induce him to work the desired 
miracle in their behalf, "they cried aloud and cut themselves, after their manner, with knives and 
with lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them" (1 Kings 18:28). In Egypt, the natives in 


general, though liberal in the use of the whip, seem to have been sparing of the knife; but even 
there, there were men also who mimicked on their own persons the dismemberment of Osiris. 
"The Carians of Egypt," says Herodotus, in the place already quoted, "treat themselves at this 
solemnity with still more severity, for they cut themselves in the face with swords" 
(HERODOTUS). To this practice, there can be no doubt, there is a direct allusion in the 
command in the Mosaic law, "Ye shall make no cuttings in your flesh for the dead" (Lev 19:28). 
* These cuttings in the flesh are largely practised in the worship of the Hindoo divinities, as 
propitiatory rites or meritorious penances. They are well known to have been practised in the 
rites of Bellona, ** the "sister" or "wife of the Roman war-god Mars," whose name, "The 
lamenter of Bel," clearly proves the original of her husband to whom the Romans were so fond 
of tracing back their pedigree. 

* Every person who died in the faith was believed to be identified with Osiris, and 
called by his name. (WILKINSON) 

** "The priests of Bellona," says Lactantius, "sacrificed not with any other men's 
blood but their own, their shoulders being lanced, and with both hands 
brandishing naked swords, they ran and leaped up and down like mad men." 

They were practised also in the most savage form in the gladiatorial shows, in which the Roman 
people, with all their boasted civilisation, so much delighted. The miserable men who were 
doomed to engage in these bloody exhibitions did not do so generally of their own free will. But 
yet, the principle on which these shows were conducted was the very same as that which 
influenced the priests of Baal. They were celebrated as propitiatory sacrifices. From Fuss we 
learn that "gladiatorial shows were sacred" to Saturn; and in Ausonius we read that "the 
amphitheatre claims its gladiators for itself, when at the end of December they PROPITIATE 
with their blood the sickle-bearing Son of Heaven." On this passage, Justus Lipsius, who quotes 
it, thus comments: "Where you will observe two things, both, that the gladiators fought on the 
Saturnalia, and that they did so for the purpose of appeasing and PROPITIATING Saturn." "The 
reason of this," he adds, "I should suppose to be, that Saturn is not among the celestial but the 
infernal gods. Plutarch, in his book of 'Summaries,' says that 'the Romans looked upon Kronos as 
a subterranean and infernal God.'" There can be no doubt that this is so far true, for the name of 
Pluto is only a synonym for Saturn, "The Hidden One." * 

* The name Pluto is evidently from "Lut," to hide, which with the Egyptian 
definite article prefixed, becomes "P'Lut." The Greek "wealth," "the hidden 
thing," is obviously formed in the same way. Hades is just another synonym of 
the same name. 

But yet, in the light of the real history of the historical Saturn, we find a more satisfactory reason 
for the barbarous custom that so much disgraced the escutcheon of Rome in all its glory, when 
mistress of the world, when such multitudes of men were 

"Butchered to make a Roman holiday." 

When it is remembered that Saturn himself was cut in pieces, it is easy to see how the idea would 
arise of offering a welcome sacrifice to him by setting men to cut one another in pieces on his 
birthday, by way of propitiating his favour. 

The practice of such penances, then, on the part of those of the Pagans who cut and slashed 
themselves, was intended to propitiate and please their god, and so to lay up a stock of merit that 


might tell in their behalf in the scales of Anubis. In the Papacy, the penances are not only 
intended to answer the same end, but, to a large extent,they are identical. I do not know, indeed, 
that they use the knife as the priests of Baal did; but it is certain that they look upon the shedding 
of their own blood as a most meritorious penance, that gains them high favour with God, and 
wipes away many sins. Let the reader look at the pilgrims at Lough Dergh, in Ireland, crawling 
on their bare knees over the sharp rocks, and leaving the bloody tracks behind them, and say 
what substantial difference there is between that and cutting themselves with knives. In the 
matter of scourging themselves, however, the adherents of the Papacy have literally borrowed 
the lash of Osiris. Everyone has heard of the Flagellants, who publicly scourge themselves on the 
festivals of the Roman Church, and who are regarded as saints of the first water. In the early ages 
of Christianity such flagellations were regarded as purely and entirely Pagan. Athenagoras, one 
of the early Christian Apologists, holds up the Pagans to ridicule for thinking that sin could be 
atoned for, or God propitiated, by any such means. But now, in the high places of the Papal 
Church, such practices are regarded as the grand means of gaining the favour of God. On Good 
Friday, at Rome and Madrid, and other chief seats of Roman idolatry, multitudes flock together 
to witness the performances of the saintly whippers, who lash themselves till the blood gushes in 
streams from every part of their body. They pretend to do this in honour of Christ, on the festival 
set apart professedly to commemorate His death, just as the worshippers of Osiris did the same 
on the festival when they lamented for his loss. * 

* The priests of Cybele at Rome observed the same practice. 

But can any man of the least Christian enlightenment believe that the exalted Saviour can look 
on such rites as doing honour to Him, which pour contempt on His all-perfect atonement, and 
represent His most "precious blood" as needing to have its virtue supplemented by that of blood 
drawn from the backs of wretched and misguided sinners? Such offerings were altogether fit for 
the worship of Moloch; but they are the very opposite of being fit for the service of Christ. 

It is not in one point only, but in manifold respects, that the ceremonies of "Holy Week" at 
Rome, as it is termed, recall to memory the rites of the great Babylonian god. The more we look 
at these rites, the more we shall be struck with the wonderful resemblance that subsists between 
them and those observed at the Egyptian festival of burning lamps and the other ceremonies of 
the fire- worshippers in different countries. In Egypt the grand illumination took place beside the 
sepulchre of Osiris at Sais. In Rome in "Holy Week," a sepulchre of Christ also figures in 
connection with a brilliant llumination of burning tapers. In Crete, where the tomb of Jupiter 
was exhibited, that tomb was an object of worship to the Cretans. In Rome, if the devotees do not 
worship the so-called sepulchre of Christ, they worship what is entombed within it. As there is 
reason to believe that the Pagan festival of burning lamps was observed in commemoration of 
the ancient fire-worship, so there is a ceremony at Rome in the Easter week, which is an 
unmistakable act of fire-worship, when a cross of fire is the grand object of worship. This 
ceremony is thus graphically described by the authoress of Rome in the 19th Century: "The effect 
of the blazing cross of fire suspended from the dome above the confession or tomb of St. Peter's, 
was strikingly brilliant at night. It is covered with innumerable lamps, which have the effect of 
one blaze of fire... The whole church was thronged with a vast multitude of all classes and 
countries, from royalty to the meanest beggar, all gazing upon this one object. In a few minutes 
the Pope and all his Cardinals descended into St. Peter's, and room being kept for them by the 
Swiss guards, the aged Pontiff... prostrated himself in silent adoration before the CROSS OF 
FIRE. A long train of Cardinals knelt before him, whose splendid robes and attendant train- 


bearers, formed a striking contrast to the humility of their attitude." What could be a more clear 
and unequivocal act of fire-worship than this? Now, view this in connection with the fact stated 
in the following extract from the same work, and how does the one cast light on the other: "With 
Holy Thursday our miseries began [that is, from crowding]. On this disastrous day we went 
before nine to the Sistine chapel... and beheld a procession led by the inferior orders of clergy, 
followed up by the Cardinals in superb dresses, bearing long wax tapers in their hands, and 
ending with the Pope himself, who walked beneath a crimson canopy, with his head uncovered, 
bearing the Host in a box; and this being, as you know, the real flesh and blood of Christ, was 
carried from the Sistine chapel through the intermediate hall to the Paulina chapel, where it was 
deposited in the sepulchre prepared to receive it beneath the altar... I never could learn why Christ 
was to be buried before He was dead, for, as the crucifixion did not take place till Good Friday, it 
seems odd to inter Him on Thursday. His body, however, is laid in the sepulchre, in all the 
churches of Rome, where this rite is practised, on Thursday forenoon, and it remains there till 
Saturday at mid-day, when, for some reason best known to themselves, He is supposed to rise 
from the grave amidst the firing of cannon, and blowing of trumpets, and jingling of bells, which 
have been carefully tied up ever since the dawn of Holy Thursday, lest the devil should get into 
them." The worship of the cross of fire on Good Friday explains at once the anomaly otherwise 
so perplexing, that Christ should be buried on Thursday, and rise from the dead on Saturday. If 
the festival of Holy Week be really, as its rites declare, one of the old festivals of Saturn, the 
Babylonian fire- god, who, though an infernal god, was yet Phoroneus, the great "Deliverer," it is 
altogether natural that the god of the Papal idolatry, though called by Christ's name, should rise 
from the dead on his own day--the Dies Saturni, or "Saturn's day." * 

* The above account referred to the ceremonies as witnessed by the authoress in 
1817 and 1818. It would seem that some change has taken place since then, 
caused probably by the very attention called by her to the gross anomaly 
mentioned above; for Count Vlodaisky, formerly a Roman Catholic priest, who 
visited Rome in 1845, has informed me that in that year the resurrection took 
place, not at mid-day, but at nine o'clock on the evening of Saturday. This may 
have been intended to make the inconsistency between Roman practice and 
Scriptural fact appear somewhat less glaring. Still the fact remains, that the 
resurrection of Christ, as celebrated at Rome, takes place, not on His own day-- 
"The Lord's day"--but--on the day of Saturn, the god of fire! 

On the day before the Miserere is sung with such overwhelming pathos, that few can listen to it 
unmoved, and many even swoon with the emotions that are excited. What if this be at bottom 
only the old song of Linus, of whose very touching and melancholy character Herodotus speaks 
so strikingly? Certain it is, that much of the pathos of that Miserere depends on the part borne in 
singing it by the sopranos; and equally certain it is that Semiramis, the wife of him who, 
historically, was the original of that god whose tragic death was so pathetically celebrated in 
many countries, enjoys the fame, such as it is, of having been the inventress of the practice from 
which soprano singing took its rise. 

Now, the flagellations which form an important part of the penances that take place at Rome on 
the evening of Good Friday, formed an equally important part in the rites of that fire-god, from 
which, as we have seen, the Papacy has borrowed so much. These flagellations, then, of "Passion 
Week," taken in connection with the other ceremonies of that period, bear their additional 
testimony to the real character of that god whose death and resurrection Rome then celebrates. 


Wonderful it is to consider that, in the very high place of what is called Catholic Christendom, 
the essential rites at this day are seen to be the very rites of the old Chaldean fire- worshippers. 

Section III 
The Sacrifice of the Mass 

If baptismal regeneration, the initiating ordinance of Rome, and justification by works, be both 
Chaldean, the principle embodied in the "unbloody sacrifice" of the mass is not less so. We have 
evidence that goes to show the Babylonian origin of the idea of that "unbloody sacrifice" very 
distinctly. From Tacitus we learn that no blood was allowed to be offered on the altars of 
Paphian Venus. Victims were used for the purposes of the Haruspex, that presages of the issues 
of events might be drawn from the inspection of the entrails of these victims; but the altars of the 
Paphian goddess were required to be kept pure from blood. Tacitus shows that the Haruspex of 
the temple of the Paphian Venus was brought from Cilicia, for his knowledge of her rites, that 
they might be duly performed according to the supposed will of the goddess, the Cilicians having 
peculiar knowledge of her rites. Now, Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, was built by Sennacerib, the 
Assyrian king, in express imitation of Babylon. Its religion would naturally correspond; and 
when we find "unbloody sacrifice" in Cyprus, whose priest came from Cilicia, that, in the 
circumstances, is itself a strong presumption that the "unbloody sacrifice" came to it through 
Cilicia from Babylon. This presumption is greatly strengthened when we find from Herodotus 
that the peculiar and abominable institution of Babylon in prostituting virgins in honour of 
Mylitta, was observed also in Cyprus in honour of Venus. But the positive testimony of 
Pausanias brings this presumption to a certainty. "Near this," says that historian, speaking of the 
temple of Vulcan at Athens, "is the temple of Celestial Venus, who was first worshipped by the 
Assyrians, and after these by the Paphians in Cyprus, and the Phoenicians who inhabited the city 
of Ascalon in Palestine. But the Cythereans venerated this goddess in consequence of learning 
her sacred rites from the Phoenicians." The Assyrian Venus, then--that is, the great goddess of 
Babylon--and the Cyprian Venus were one and the same, and consequently the "bloodless" altars 
of the Paphian goddess show the character of the worship peculiar to the Babylonian goddess, 
from whom she was derived. In this respect the goddess-queen of Chaldea differed from her son, 
who was worshipped in her arms. He was, as we have seen, represented as delighting in blood. 
But she, as the mother of grace and mercy, as the celestial "Dove," as "the hope of the whole 
world," (BRYANT) was averse to blood, and was represented in a benign and gentle character. 
Accordingly, in Babylon she bore the name of Mylitta- -that is, "The Mediatrix." * 

* Mylitta is the same as Melitta, the feminine of Melitz, "a mediator," which in 
Chaldee becomes Melitt. Melitz is the word used in Job 33:23, 24: "If there be a 
messenger with him, an interpreter (Heb. Melitz, "a mediator"), one among a 
thousand, to show unto man his uprightness, then he is gracious unto him, and 
saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit; I have found a ransom." 

Every one who reads the Bible, and sees how expressly it declares that, as there is only "one 
God," so there is only "one Mediator between God and man" (1 Tim 2:5), must marvel how it 
could ever have entered the mind of any one to bestow on Mary, as is done by the Church of 
Rome, the character of the "Mediatrix." But the character ascribed to the Babylonian goddess as 
Mylitta sufficiently accounts for this. In accordance with this character of Mediatrix, she was 
called Aphrodite- -that is, "the wrath- subduer" *--who by her charms could soothe the breast of 


angry Jove, and soften the most rugged spirits of gods or mortal- men. In Athens she was called 
Amarusia (PAUSANIAS)--that is, "The Mother of gracious acceptance." ** 

* From Chaldee "aph," "wrath," and "radah," "to subdue"; "radite" is the feminine 

** From "Ama," "mother," and "Retza," "to accept graciously," which in the 
participle active is "Rutza." Pausanias expresses his perplexity as to the meaning 
of the name Amarusia as applied to Diana, saying, "Concerning which appellation 
I never could find any one able to give a satisfactory account." The sacred tongue 
plainly shows the meaning of it. 

In Rome she was called "Bona Dea," "the good goddess," the mysteries of this goddess being 
celebrated by women with peculiar secrecy. In India the goddess Lakshmi, "the Mother of the 
Universe," the consort of Vishnu, is represented also as possessing the most gracious and genial 
disposition; and that disposition is indicated in the same way as in the case of the Babylonian 
goddess. "In the festivals of Lakshmi," says Coleman, "no sanguinary sacrifices are offered." In 
China, the great gods, on whom the final destinies of mankind depend, are held up to the popular 
mind as objects of dread; but the goddess Kuanyin, "the goddess of mercy," whom the Chinese 
of Canton recognise as bearing an analogy to the Virgin or Rome, is described as looking with an 
eye of compassion on the guilty, and interposing to save miserable souls even from torments to 
which in the world of spirits they have been doomed. Therefore she is regarded with peculiar 
favour by the Chinese. This character of the goddess- mother has evidently radiated in all 
directions from Chaldea. Now, thus we see how it comes that Rome represents Christ, the "Lamb 
of God," meek and lowly in heart, who never brake the bruised reed, nor quenched the smoking 
flax--who spake words of sweetest encouragement to every mourning penitent--who wept over 
Jerusalem- -who prayed for His murderers- -as a stern and inexorable judge, before whom the 
sinner "might grovel in the dust, and still never be sure that his prayers would be heard," while 
Mary is set off in the most winning and engaging light, as the hope of the guilty, as the grand 
refuge of sinners; how it is that the former is said to have "reserved justice and judgment to 
Himself," but to have committed the exercise of all mercy to His Mother! The most standard 
devotional works of Rome are pervaded by this very principle, exalting the compassion and 
gentleness of the mother at the expense of the loving character of the Son. Thus, St. Alphonsus 
Liguori tells his readers that the sinner that ventures to come directly to Christ may come with 
dread and apprehension of His wrath; but let him only employ the mediation of the Virgin with 
her Son, and she has only to "show" that Son "the breasts that gave him suck" (Catholic 
Layman, July, 1856) and His wrath will immediately be appeased. But where in the Word of God 
could such an idea have been found? Not surely in the answer of the Lord Jesus to the woman 
who exclaimed, "Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps that thou hast sucked!" Jesus 
answered and said unto her, "Yea, rather, blessed are they that hear the Word of God and keep it" 
(Luke 11:27,28). There cannot be a doubt that this answer was given by the prescient Saviour, to 
check in the very bud every idea akin to that expressed by Liguori. Yet this idea, which is not to 
be found in Scripture, which the Scripture expressly repudiates, was widely diffused in the 
realms of Paganism. Thus we find an exactly parallel representation in the Hindoo mythology in 
regard to the god Siva and his wife Kali, when that god appeared as a little child. "Siva," says the 
Lainga Puran, "appeared as an infant in a cemetery, surrounded by ghosts, and on beholding him, 
Kali (his wife) took him up, and, caressing him, gave him her breast. He sucked the nectareous 
fluid; but becoming ANGRY, in order to divert and PACIFY him, Kali clasping him to her 


bosom, danced with her attendant goblins and demons amongst the dead, until he was pleased 
and delighted; while Vishnu, Brahma, Indra, and all the gods, bowing themselves, praised with 
laudatory strains the god of gods, Kal and Parvati." Kali, in India, is the goddess of destruction; 
but even into the myth that concerns this goddess of destruction, the power of the goddess 
mother, in appeasing an offended god, by means only suited to PACIFY a peevish child, has 
found an introduction. If the Hindoo story exhibits its "god of gods" in such a degrading light, 
how much more honouring is the Papal story to the Son of the Blessed, when it represents Him 
as needing to be pacified by His mother exposing to Him "the breasts that He has sucked." All 
this is done only to exalt the Mother, as more gracious and more compassionate than her glorious 
Son. Now, this was the very case in Babylon: and to this character of the goddess queen her 
favourite offerings exactly corresponded. Therefore, we find the women of Judah represented as 
simply "burning incense, pouring out drink-offerings, and offering cakes to the queen of heaven" 
(Jer 44:19). The cakes were "the unbloody sacrifice" she required. That "unbloody sacrifice" her 
votaries not only offered, but when admitted to the higher mysteries, they partook of, swearing 
anew fidelity to her. In the fourth century, when the queen of heaven, under the name of Mary, 
was beginning to be worshipped in the Christian Church, this "unbloody sacrifice" also was 
brought in. Epiphanius states that the practice of offering and eating it began among the women 
of Arabia; and at that time it was well known to have been adopted from the Pagans. The very 
shape of the unbloody sacrifice of Rome may indicate whence it came. It is a small thin, round 
wafer; and on its roundness the Church of Rome lays so much stress, to use the pithy language of 
John Knox in regard to the wafer-god, "If, in making the roundness the ring be broken, then must 
another of his fellow- cakes receive that honour to be made a god, and the crazed or cracked 
miserable cake, that once was in hope to be made a god, must be given to a baby to play withal." 
What could have induced the Papacy to insist so much on the "roundness" of its "unbloody 
sacrifice"? Clearly not any reference to the Divine institution of the Supper of our Lord; for in all 
the accounts that are given of it, no reference whatever is made to the form of the bread which 
our Lord took, when He blessed and break it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, "Take, eat; this 
is My body: this do in remembrance of Me." As little can it be taken from any regard to 
injunctions about the form of the Jewish Paschal bread; for no injunctions on that subject are 
given in the books of Moses. The importance, however, which Rome attaches to the roundness 
of the wafer, must have a reason; and that reason will be found, if we look at the altars of Egypt. 
"The thin, round cake," says Wilkinson, "occurs on all altars." Almost every jot or tittle in the 
Egyptian worship had a symbolical meaning. The round disk, so frequent in the sacred emblems 
of Egypt, symbolised the sun. Now, when Osiris, the sun-divinity, became incarnate, and was 
born, it was not merely that he should give his life as a sacrifice for men, but that he might also 
be the life and nourishment of the souls of men. It is universally admitted that Isis was the 
original of the Greek and Roman Ceres. But Ceres, be it observed, was worshipped not simply as 
the discoverer of corn; she was worshipped as "the MOTHER of Corn." The child she brought 
forth was He-Siri, "the Seed," or, as he was most frequently called in Assyria, "Bar," which 
signifies at once "the Son" and "the Corn. " (Fig. 37) . The uninitiated might reverence Ceres for 
the gift of material corn to nourish their bodies, but the initiated adored her for a higher gift- -for 
food to nourish their souls --for giving them that bread of God that cometh down from heaven- - 
for the life of the world, of which, "if a man eat, he shall never die." Does any one imagine that it 
is a mere New Testament doctrine, that Christ is the "bread of life"? There never was, there never 
could be, spiritual life in any soul, since the world began, at least since the expulsion from Eden, 
that was not nourished and supported by a continual feeding by faith on the Son of God, "in 


whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell" (Col 1:19), "that out of His fulness 
we might receive, and grace for grace" (John 1:16). Paul tells us that the manna of which the 
Israelites ate in the wilderness was to them a type and lively symbol of "the bread of life"; (1 Cor 
10:3), "They did all eat the same spiritual meat"-- i.e., meat which was intended not only to 
support their natural lives, but to point them to Him who was the life of their souls. Now, 
Clement of Alexandria, to whom we are largely indebted for all the discoveries that, in modern 
times, have been made in Egypt, expressly assures us that, "in their hidden character, the 
enigmas of the Egyptians were VERY SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE JEWS." That the initiated 
Pagans actually believed that the "Corn" which Ceres bestowed on the world was not the "Corn" 
of this earth, but the Divine "Son," through whom alone spiritual and eternal life could be 
enjoyed, we have clear and decisive proof. The Druids were devoted worshippers of Ceres, and 
as such they were celebrated in their mystic poems as "bearers of the ears of corn." Now, the 
following is the account which the Druids give of their great divinity, under the form of "Corn." 
That divinity was represented as having, in the first instance, incurred, for some reason or other, 
the displeasure of Ceres, and was fleeing in terror from her. In his terror, "he took the form of a 
bird, and mounted into the air. That element afforded him no refuge: for The Lady, in the form of 
a sparrow-hawk, was gaining upon him- -she was just in the act of pouncing upon him. 
Shuddering with dread, he perceived a heap of clean wheat upon a floor, dropped into the midst 
of it, and assumed the form of a single grain. Ceridwen [i.e., the British Ceres] took the form of a 
black high- crested hen, descended into the wheat, scratched him out, distinguished, and 
swallowed him. And, as the history relates, she was pregnant of him nine months, and when 
delivered of him, she found him so lovely a babe, that she had not resolution to put him to death" 
("Song of Taliesin," DAVIES'S British Druids). Here it is evident that the grain of corn, is 
expressly identified with "the lovely babe"; from which it is still further evident that Ceres, who, 
to the profane vulgar was known only as the Mother of "Bar," "the Corn," was known to the 
initiated as the Mother of "Bar," "the Son." And now, the reader will be prepared to understand 
the full significance of the representation in the Celestial sphere of "the Virgin with the ear of 
wheat in her hand." That ear of wheat in the Virgin's hand is just another symbol for the child in 
the arms of the Virgin Mother. 

Fig. SI 

Fig. 37: Ceres, Mother of Bar, "the Son," and of Bar, "the Corn." 

The ear of corn in the above medal from BRYANT (vol. v. p. 383), is alongside 
of Ceres; but usually it is held in her hand. The god on the reverse is the same as 
that ear. (See Deification of the Child , in regard to "Beltis and the Shining 


Now, this Son, who was symbolised as "Corn," was the SUN -divinity incarnate, according to the 
sacred oracle of the great goddess of Egypt: "No mortal hath lifted my veil. The fruit which I 
have brought forth is the SUN" (BUNS EN'S Egypt). What more natural then, if this incarnate 
divinity is symbolised as the 'bread of God," than that he should be represented as a 'round 
wafer," to identify him with the Sun? Is this a mere fancy? Let the reader peruse the following 
extract from Hurd, in which he describes the embellishments of the Romish altar, on which the 
sacrament or consecrated wafer is deposited, and then he will be able to judge: "A plate of silver, 
in the form of a SUN, is fixed opposite to the SACRAMENT on the altar; which, with the light 
of the tapers, makes a most brilliant appearance." What has that "brilliant" 'Sun" to do there, on 
the altar, over against the "sacrament," or round wafer? In Egypt, the disk of the Sun was 
represented in the temples, and the sovereign and his wife and children were represented as 
adoring it. Near the small town of Babain, in Upper Egypt, there still exists in a grotto, a 
representation of a sacrifice to the sun, where two priests are seen worshipping the sun's image, 
as in the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 38) . In the great temple of Babylon, the golden image of 
the Sun was exhibited for the worship of the Babylonians. In the temple of Cuzco, in Peru, the 
disk of the sun was fixed up in flaming gold upon the wall, that all who entered might bow down 
before it. The Paeonians of Thrace were sun- worshippers; and in their worship they adored an 
image of the sun in the form of a disk at the top of a long pole. In the worship of Baal, as 
practised by the idolatrous Israelites in the days of their apostacy, the worship of the sun's image 
was equally observed; and it is striking to find that the image of the sun, which apostate Israel 
worshipped, was erected above the altar. When the good king Josiah set about the work of 
reformation, we read that his servants in carrying out the work, proceeded thus (2 Chron 34:4): 
"And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence, and the images (margin, SUN- 
IMAGES) that were on high above them, he cut down." Benjamin of Tudela, the great Jewish 
traveller, gives a striking account of sun-worship even in comparatively modern times, as 
subsisting among the Cushites of the East, from which we find that the image of the sun was, 
even in his day, worshipped on the altar. "There is a temple," says he, "of the posterity of Chus, 
addicted to the contemplation of the stars. They worship the sun as a god, and the whole country, 
for half- a- mile round their town, is filled with great altars dedicated to him. By the dawn of morn 
they get up and run out of town, to wait the rising sun, to whom, on every altar, there is a 
consecrated image, not in the likeness of a man, but of the solar orb, framed by magic art. These 
orbs, as soon as the sun rises, take fire, and resound with a great noise, while everybody there, 
men and women, hold censers in their hands, and all burn incense to the sun." From all this, it is 
manifest that the image of the sun above, or on the altar, was one of the recognised symbols of 
those who worshipped Baal or the sun. And here, in a so-called Christian Church, a brilliant plate 
of silver, "in the form of a SUN," is so placed on the altar, that every one who adores at that altar 
must bow down in lowly reverence before that image of the 'Sun." Whence, I ask, could that 
have come, but from the ancient sun-worship, or the worship of Baal? And when the wafer is so 
placed that the silver "SUN" is fronting the "round" wafer, whose "roundness" is so important an 
element in the Romish Mystery, what can be the meaning of it, but just to show to those who 
have eyes to see, that the "Wafer" itself is only another symbol of Baal, or the Sun. If the sun- 
divinity was worshipped in Egypt as "the Seed," or in Babylon as the "Corn," precisely so is the 
wafer adored in Rome. "Bread-corn of the elect, have mercy upon us," is one of the appointed 
prayers of the Roman Litany, addressed to the wafer, in the celebration of the mass. And one at 
least of the imperative requirements as to the way in which that wafer is to be partaken of, is the 
very same as was enforced in the old worship of the Babylonian divinity. Those who partake of it 


are required to partake absolutely fasting. This is very stringently laid down. Bishop Hay, laying 
down the law on the subject, says that it is indispensable, "that we be fasting from midnight, so 
as to have taken nothing into our stomach from twelve o'clock at night before we receive, neither 
food, nor drink, nor medicine." Considering that our Lord Jesus Christ instituted the Holy 
Communion immediately after His disciples had partaken of the paschal feast, such a strict 
requirement of fasting might seem very unaccountable. But look at this provision in regard to the 
"unbloody sacrifice" of the mass in the light of the Eleusinian Mysteries, and it is accounted for 
at once; for there the first question put to those who sought initiation was, "Are you fasting?" 
(POTTER, Eleusiania) and unless that question was answered in the affirmative, no initiation 
could take place. There is no question that fasting is in certain circumstances a Christian duty; 
but while neither the letter nor the spirit of the Divine institution requires any such stringent 
regulation as the above, the regulations in regard to the Babylonian Mysteries make it evident 
whence this requirement has really come. 

Tig. M. 

Fig. 38: Sun- Worship in Egypt 

From MAURICE'S Indian Antiquites, vol. iii. p. 309. 1793 

Although the god whom Isis or Ceres brought forth, and who was offered to her under the 
symbol of the wafer or thin round cake, as "the bread of life," was in reality the fierce, scorching 
Sun, or terrible Moloch yet in that offering all his terror was veiled, and everything repulsive 
was cast into the shade. In the appointed symbol he is offered up to the benignant Mother, who 
tempers judgment with mercy, and to whom all spiritual blessings are ultimately referred; and 
blessed by that mother, he is given back to be feasted upon, as the staff of life, as the 
nourishment of her worshippers' souls. Thus the Mother was held up as the favourite divinity. 
And thus, also, and for an entirely similar reason, does the Madonna of Rome entirely eclipse her 
son as the "Mother of grace and mercy." 


In regard to the Pagan character of the "unbloody sacrifice" of the mass, we have seen not little 
already. But there is something yet to be considered, in which the working of the mystery of 
iniquity will still further appear. There are letters on the wafer that are worth reading. These 
letters are I. H. S. What mean these mystical letters? To a Christian these letters are represented 
as signifying, "Iesus Hominum Salvator," "Jesus the Saviour of men." But let a Roman 
worshipper of Isis (for in the age of the emperors there were innumerable worshippers of Isis in 
Rome) cast his eyes upon them, and how will he read them? He will read them, of course, 
according to his own well known system of idolatry: "Isis, Horus, Seb," that is, "The Mother, the 
Child, and the Father of the gods, "--in other words, "The Egyptian Trinity." Can the reader 
imagine that this double sense is accidental? Surely not. The very same spirit that converted the 
festival of the Pagan Oannes into the feast of the Christian Joannes, retaining at the same time all 
its ancient Paganism, has skilfully planned the initials I. H. S. to pay the semblance of a tribute to 
Christianity, while Paganism in reality has all the substance of the homage bestowed upon it. 

When the women of Arabia began to adopt this wafer and offer the "unbloody sacrifice," all 
genuine Christians saw at once the real character of their sacrifice. They were treated as heretics, 
and branded with the name of Collyridians, from the Greek name for the cake which they 
employed. But Rome saw that the heresy might be turned to account; and therefore, though 
condemned by the sound portion of the Church, the practice of offering and eating this 
"unbloody sacrifice" was patronised by the Papacy; and now, throughout the whole bounds of 
the Romish communion, it has superseded the simple but most precious sacrament of the Supper 
instituted by our Lord Himself. 

Intimately connected with the sacrifice of the mass is the subject of transubstantiation; but the 
consideration of it will come more conveniently at a subsequent stage of this inquiry. 

Section IV 
Extreme Unction 

The last office which Popery performs for living men is to give them "extreme unction," to 
anoint them in the name of the Lord, after they have been shriven and absolved, and thus to 
prepare them for their last and unseen journey. The pretence for this "unction" of dying men is 
professedly taken from a command of James in regard to the visitation of the sick; but when the 
passage in question is fairly quoted it will be seen that such a practice could never have arisen 
from the apostolic direction- -that t must have come from an entirely different source. "Is any 
sick among you?" says James (v 14,15), "let him call for the elders of the church; and let them 
pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: and the prayer of faith shall save 
the sick, and the Lord shall RAISE HIM UP." Now, it is evident that this prayer and anointing 
were intended for the recovery of the sick. Apostolic men, for the laying of the foundations of 
the Christian Church, were, by their great King and Head, invested with miraculous powers- - 
powers which were intended only for a time, and were destined, as the apostles themselves 
declared, while exercising them, to "vanish away" (1 Cor 13:8). These powers were every day 
exercised by the "elders of the Church," when James wrote his epistle, and that for healing the 
bodies of men, even as our Lord Himself did. The "extreme unction" of Rome, as the very 
expression itself declares, is not intended for any such purpose. It is not intended for healing the 
sick, or "raising them up"; for it is not on any account to be administered till all hope of recovery 
is gone, and death is visibly at the very doors. As the object of this anointing is the very opposite 


of the Scriptural anointing, it must have come from a quite different quarter. That quarter is the 
very same from which the Papacy has imported so much heathenism, as we have seen already, 
into its own foul bosom. From the Chaldean Mysteries, extreme unction has obviously come. 
Among the many names of the Babylonian god was the name "Beel-samen," "Lord of Heaven," 
which is the name of the sun, but also of course of the sun- god. But Beel-samen also properly 
signifies "Lord of Oil," and was evidently intended as a synonym of the Divine name, "The 
Messiah." In Herodotus we find a statement made which this name alone can fully explain. There 
an individual is represented as having dreamt that the sun had anointed her father. That the sun 
should anoint any one is certainly not an idea that could naturally have presented itself; but when 
the name "Beel-samen," "Lord of Heaven," is seen also to signify "Lord of Oil," it is easy to see 
how that idea would be suggested. This also accounts for the fact that the body of the Babylonian 
Belus was represented as having been preserved in his sepulchre in Babylon till the time of 
Xerxes, floating in oil (CLERICUS, Philosoph. Orient.). And for the same reason, no doubt, it 
was that at Rome the "statue of Saturn" was "made hollow, and filled with oil" (SMITH'S 
Classical Dictionary). 

The olive branch, which we have already seen to have been one of the symbols of the Chaldean 
god, had evidently the same hieroglyphical meaning; for, as the olive was the oil-tree, so an olive 
branch emblematically signified a "son of oil," or an "anointed one" (Zech 4:12-14). Hence the 
reason that the Greeks, in coming before their gods in the attitude of suppliants deprecating their 
wrath and entreating their favour, came to the temple on many occasions bearing an olive branch 
in their hands. As the olive branch was one of the recognised symbols of their Messiah, whose 
great mission it was to make peace between God and man, so, in bearing this branch of the 
anointed one, they thereby testified that in the name of that anointed one they came seeking 
peace. Now, the worshippers of this Beel-samen, "Lord of Heaven," and "Lord of Oil," were 
anointed in the name of their god. It was not enough that they were anointed with "spittle"; they 
were also anointed with "magical ointments" of the most powerful kind; and these ointments 
were the means of introducing into their bodily systems such drugs as tended to excite their 
imaginations and add to the power of the magical drinks they received, that they might be 
prepared for the visions and revelations that were to be made to them in the Mysteries. These 
"unctions" says Salverte, "were exceedingly frequent in the ancient ceremonies... Before 
consulting the oracle of Trophonius, they were rubbed with oil over the whole body. This 
preparation certainly concurred to produce the desired vision. Before being admitted to the 
Mysteries of the Indian sages, Apollonius and his companion were rubbed with an oil so 
powerful that they felt as if bathed with fire." This was professedly an unction in the name of the 
"Lord of Heaven," to fit and prepare them for being admitted in vision into his awful presence. 
The very same reason that suggested such an unction before initiation on this present scene of 
things, would naturally plead more powerfully still for a special 'Unction" when the individual 
was called, not in vision, but in reality, to face the "Mystery of mysteries," his personal 
introduction into the world unseen and eternal. Thus the Pagan system naturally developed itself 
into "extreme unction" {Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, January, 1853). Its votaries were 
anointed for their last journey, that by the double influence of superstition and powerful 
stimulants introduced into the frame by the only way in which it might then be possible, their 
minds might be fortified at once against the sense of guilt and the assaults of the king of terrors. 
From this source, and this alone, there can be no doubt came the "extreme unction" of the 
Papacy, which was entirely unknown among Christians till corruption was far advanced in the 
Church. * 


* Bishop GIBSON says that it was not known in the Church for a thousand years. 
(Preservative against Popery) 

Section V 
Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead 

"Extreme unction," however, to a burdened soul, was but a miserable resource, after all, in the 
prospect of death. No wonder, therefore, that something else was found to be needed by those 
who had received all that priestly assumption could pretend to confer, to comfort them in the 
prospect of eternity. In every system, therefore, except that of the Bible, the doctrine of a 
purgatory after death, and prayers for the dead, has always been found to occupy a place. Go 
wherever we may, in ancient or modern times, we shall find that Paganism leaves hope after 
death for sinners, who, at the time of their departure, were consciously unfit for the abodes of the 
blest. For this purpose a middle state has been feigned, in which, by means of purgatorial pains, 
guilt unremoved in time may in a future world be purged away, and the soul be made meet for 
final beatitude. In Greece the doctrine of a purgatory was inculcated by the very chief of the 
philosophers. Thus Plato, speaking of the future judgment of the dead, holds out the hope of final 
deliverance for all, but maintains that, of "those who are judged," "some" mast first "proceed to a 
subterranean place of judgment, where they shall sustain the punishment they have deserved"; 
while others, in consequence of a favourable judgment, being elevated at once into a certain 
celestial place, "shall pass their time in a manner becoming the life they have lived in a human 
shape." In Pagan Rome, purgatory was equally held up before the minds of men; but there, there 
seems to have been no hope held out to any of exemption from its pains. Therefore, Virgil, 
describing its different tortures, thus speaks: 

"Nor can the grovelling mind, 

In the dark dungeon of the limbs confined, 

Assert the native skies, or own its heavenly kind. 

Nor death itself can wholly wash their stains; 

But long- contracted filth, even in the soul, remains 

The relics of inveterate vice they wear, 

And spots of sin obscene in every face appear. 

For this are various penances enjoined; 

And some are hung to bleach upon the wind, 

Some plunged in water, others purged in fires, 

Till all the dregs are drained, and all the rust expires. 

All have their Manes, and those Manes bear. 

The few so cleansed to these abodes repair, 

And breathe in ample fields the soft Elysian air, 

Then are they happy, when by length of time 

The scurf is worn away of each committed crime. 

No speck is left of their habitual stains, 

But the pure ether of the soul remains." 

In Egypt, substantially the same doctrine of purgatory was inculcated. But when once this 
doctrine of purgatory was admitted into the popular mind, then the door was opened for all 
manner of priestly extortions. Prayers for the dead ever go hand in hand with purgatory; but no 


prayers can be completely efficacious without the interposition of the priests; and no priestly 
functions can be rendered unless there be special pay for them. Therefore, in every land we find 
the Pagan priesthood "devouring widows' houses," and making merchandise of the tender 
feelings of sorrowing relatives, sensitively alive to the immortal happiness of the beloved dead. 
From all quarters there is one universal testimony as to the burdensome character and the 
expense of these posthumous devotions. One of the oppressions under which the poor Romanists 
in Ireland groan, is the periodical special devotions, for which they are required to pay, when 
death has carried away one of the inmates of their dwelling. Not only are there funeral services 
and funeral dues for the repose of the departed, at the time of burial, but the priest pays repeated 
visits to the family for the same purpose, which entail heavy expense, beginning with what is 
called "the month's mind," that is, a service in behalf of the deceased when a month after death 
has elapsed. Something entirely similar to this had evidently been the case in ancient Greece; for, 
says Muller in his History of the Dorians, "the Argives sacrificed on the thirtieth day [after 
death] to Mercury as the conductor of the dead." In India many and burdensome are the services 
of the Sradd'ha, or funeral obsequies for the repose of the dead; and for securing the due efficacy 
of these, it is inculcated that "donations of cattle, land, gold, silver, and other things," should be 
made by the man himself at the approach of death; or, "if he be too weak, by another in his 
name" Asiatic Researches). Wherever we look, the case is nearly the same. In Tartary, "The 
Gurjumi, or prayers for the dead," says the Asiatic Journal, "are very expensive." In Greece, says 
Suidas, "the greatest and most expensive sacrifice was the mysterious sacrifice called the Telete," 
a sacrifice which, according to Plato, "was offered for the living and the dead, and was supposed 
to free them from all the evils to which the wicked are liable when they have left this world." In 
Egypt the exactions of the priests for funeral dues and masses for the dead were far from being 
trifling. "The priests," says Wilkinson, "induced the people to expend large sums on the 
celebration of funeral rites; and many who had barely sufficient to obtain the necessaries of life 
were anxious to save something for the expenses of their death. For, beside the embalming 
process, which sometimes cost a talent of silver, or about 250 pounds English money, the tomb 
itself was purchased at an immense expense; and numerous demands were made upon the estate 
of the deceased, for the celebration of prayer and other services for the soul." "The ceremonies," 
we find him elsewhere saying, "consisted of a sacrifice similar to those offered in the temples, 
vowed for the deceased to one or more gods (as Osisris, Anubis, and others connected with 
Amenti); incense and libation were also presented; and a prayer was sometimes read, the 
relations and friends being present as mourners. They even joined their prayers to those of the 
priest. The priest who officiated at the burial service was selected from the grade of Pontiffs, 
who wore the leopard skin; but various other rites were performed by one of the minor priests to 
the mummies, previous to their being lowered into the pit of the tomb after that ceremony. 
Indeed, they continued to be administered at intervals, as long as the family paid for their 
performance." Such was the operation of the doctrine of purgatory and prayers for the dead 
among avowed and acknowledged Pagans; and in what essential respect does it differ from the 
operation of the same doctrine in Papal Rome? There are the same extortions in the one as there 
were in the other. The doctrine of purgatory is purely Pagan, and cannot for a moment stand in 
the light of Scripture. For those who die in Christ no purgatory is, or can be, needed; for "the 
blood of Jesus Christ, God's Son, cleanseth from ALL sin." If this be true, where can there be the 
need for any other cleansing? On the other hand, for those who die without personal union to 
Christ, and consequently unwashed, unjustified, unsaved, there can be no other cleansing; for, 
while "he that hath the son hath life, he that hath not the Son hath not life," and never can have it. 


Search the Scripture through, and it will be found that, in regard to all who "die in their sins" the 
decree of God is irreversible: "Let him that is unjust be unjust still, and let him that is filthy be 
filthy still." Thus the whole doctrine of purgatory is a system of pure bare- faced Pagan 
imposture, dishonouring to God, deluding men who live in sin with the hope of atoning for it 
after death, and cheating them at once out of their property and their salvation. In the Pagan 
purgatory, fire, water, wind, were represented (as may be seen from the lines of Virgil) as 
combining to purge away the stain of sin. In the purgatory of the Papacy, ever since the days of 
Pope Gregory, FIRE itself has been the grand means of purgation (Catechismus Romanus). Thus, 
while the purgatorial fires of the future world are just the carrying out of the principle embodied 
in the blazing and purifying Baal- fires of the eve of St. John, they form another link in 
identifying the system of Rome with the system of Tammuz or Zoroaster, the great God of the 
ancient fire- worshippers. 

Now, if baptismal regeneration, justification by works, penance as a satisfaction to God's 
justice, the unbloody sacrifice of the mass, extreme unction, purgatory, and prayers for the 
dead, were all derived from Babylon, how justly may the general system of Rome be styled 
Babylonian? And if the account already given be true, what thanks ought we to render to God, 
that, from a system such as this, we were set free at the blessed Reformation! How great a boon 
is it to be delivered from trusting in such refuges of lies as could no more take away sin than the 
blood of bulls or of goats! How blessed to feel that the blood of the Lamb, applied by the Spirit 
of God to the most defiled conscience, completely purges it from dead works and from sin! How 
fervent ought our gratitude to be, when we know that, in all our trials and distresses, we may 
come boldly unto the throne of grace, in the name of no creature, but of God's eternal and well- 
beloved Son; and that that Son is exhibited as a most tender and compassionate high priest, who 
is TOUCHED with a feeling of our infirmities, having been in all points tempted like as we are, 
yet without sin. Surely the thought of all this, while inspiring tender compassion for the deluded 
slaves of Papal tyranny, ought to make us ourselves stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has 
made us free, and quit ourselves like men, that neither we nor our children may ever again be 
entangled in the yoke of bondage. 

Chapter 5 

Rites and Ceremonies 

Section I 

Idol Processions 

Those who have read the account of the last idol procession in the capital of Scotland, in John 
Knox's History of the Reformation, cannot easily have forgot the tragi-comedy with which it 
ended. The light of the Gospel had widely spread, the Popish idols had lost their fascination, and 
popular antipathy was everywhere rising against them. "The images," says the historian, "were 
stolen away in all parts of the country; and in Edinburgh was that great idol called Sanct Geyle 
[the patron saint of the capital], first drowned in the North Loch, after burnt, which raised no 
small trouble in the town." The bishops demanded of the Town Council either "to get them again 
the old Sanct Geyle, or else, upon their (own) expenses, to make a new image." The Town 
Council could not do the one, and the other they absolutely refused to do; for they were now 
convinced of the sin of idolatry. The bishops and priests, however, were still made upon their 
idols; and, as the anniversary of the feast of St. Giles was approaching, when the saint used to be 
carried in procession through the town, they determined to do their best, that the accustomed 


procession should take place with as much pomp as possible. For this purpose, "a marmouset 
idole" was borrowed from the Grey friars, which the people, in derision, called "Young Sanct 
Geyle," and which was made to do service instead of the old one. On the appointed day, says 
Know, "there assembled priests, friars, canons. ..with taborns and trumpets, banners, and 
bagpipes; and who was there to lead the ring but the Queen Regent herself, with all her 
shavelings, for honour of that feast. West about goes it, and comes down the High Street, and 
down to the Canno Cross." As long as the Queen was present, all went to the heart's content of 
the priests and their partisans. But no sooner had majesty retired to dine, than some in the crowd, 
who had viewed the whole concern with an evil eye, "drew nigh to the idol, as willing to help to 
bear him, and getting the fertour (or barrow) on their shoulders, began to shudder, thinking that 
thereby the idol should have fallen. But that was provided and prevented by the iron nails [with 
which it was fastened to the fertour]; and so began one to cry, 'Down with the idol, down with it'; 
and so without delay it was pulled down. Some brag made the priests' patrons at the first; but 
when they saw the feebleness of their god, for one took him by the heels, and dadding 
[knocking] his head to the calsay [pavement], left Dagon without head or hands, and said, 'Fye 
upon thee, thou young Sanct Geyle, thy father would have tarried [withstood] four such [blows]'; 
this considered, we say, the priests and friars fled faster than they did at Pinkey Cleuch. There 
might have been seen so sudden a fray as seldom has been seen amongst that sort of men within 
this realm; for down goes the crosses, off goes the surplice, round caps corner with the crowns. 
The Grey friars gaped, the Black friars blew, the priests panted and fled, and happy was he that 
first gat the house; for such ane sudden fray came never amongst the generation of Antichrist 
within this realm before." 

Such an idol procession among a people who had begun to study and relish the Word of God, 
elicited nothing but indignation and scorn. But in Popish lands, among a people studiously kept 
in the dark, such processions are among the favourite means which the Romish Church employs 
to bind its votaries to itself. The long processions with images borne on men's shoulders, with the 
gorgeous dresses of the priests, and the various habits of different orders of monks and nuns, 
with the aids of flying banners and the thrilling strains of instrumental music, if not too closely 
scanned, are well fitted "plausibly to amuse" the worldly mind, to gratify the love for the 
picturesque, and when the emotions thereby called forth are dignified with the names of piety 
and religion, to minister to the purposes of spiritual despotism. Accordingly, Popery has ever 
largely availed itself of such pageants. On joyous occasions, it has sought to consecrate the 
hilarity and excitement created by such processions to the service of its idols; and in seasons of 
sorrow, it has made use of the same means to draw forth the deeper wail of distress from the 
multitudes that throng the procession, as if the mere loudness of the cry would avert the 
displeasure of a justly offended God. Gregory, commonly called the Great, seems to have been 
the first who, on a large scale, introduced those religious processions into the Roman Church. In 
590, when Rome was suffering under the heavy hand of God from the pestilence, he exhorted the 
people to unite publicly in supplication to God, appointing that they should meet at daybreak in 
SEVEN DIFFERENT COMPANIES, according to their respective ages, SEXES, and stations, 
and walk in seven different processions, reciting litanies or supplications, till they all met at one 
place. They did so, and proceeded singing and uttering the words, "Lord, have mercy upon us," 
carrying along with them, as Baronius relates, by Gregory's express command, an image of the 
Virgin. The very idea of such processions was an affront to the majesty of heaven; it implied that 
God who is a Spirit "saw with eyes of flesh," and might be moved by the imposing 
picturesqueness of such a spectacle, just as sensuous mortals might. As an experiment it had but 


slender success. In the space of one hour, while thus engaged, eighty persons fell to the ground, 
and breathed their last. Yet this is now held up to Britons as "the more excellent way" for 
deprecating the wrath of God in a season of national distress. "Had this calamity," says Dr. 
Wiseman, referring to the Indian disasters, "had this calamity fallen upon our forefathers in 
Catholic days, one would have seen the streets of this city [London] trodden in every direction 
by penitential processions, crying out, like David, when pestilence had struck the people." If this 
allusion to David has any pertinence or meaning, it must imply that David, in the time of 
pestilence, headed some such "penitential procession." But Dr. Wiseman knows, or ought to 
know, that David did nothing of the sort, that his penitence was expressed in no such way as by 
processions, and far less by idol processions, as "in the Catholic days of our forefathers," to 
which we are invited to turn back. This reference to David, then, is a mere blind, intended to 
mislead those who are not given to Bible reading, as if such "penitential processions" had 
something of Scripture warrant to rest upon. The Times, commenting on this recommendation of 
the Papal dignitary, has hit the nail on the head. "The historic idea," says that journal, "is simple 
enough, and as old as old can be. We have it in Homer--the procession of Hecuba and the ladies 
of Troy to the shrine of Minerva, in the Acropolis of that city." It was a time of terror and dismay 
in Troy, when Diomede, with resistless might, was driving everything before him, and the 
overthrow of the proud city seemed at hand. To avert the apparently inevitable doom, the Trojan 
Queen was divinely directed. 

"To lead the assembled train 
Of Troy's chief matron's to Minerva's fane." 

And she did so:-- 

"Herself... the long procession leads; 

The train majestically slow proceeds. 

Soon as to Ilion's topmost tower they come, 

And awful reach the high Palladian dome, 

Antenor's consort, fair Theano, waits 

As Pallas' priestess, and unbars the gates. 

With hands uplifted and imploring eyes, 

They fill the dome with supplicating cries." 

Here is a precedent for "penitential processions" in connection with idolatry entirely to the point, 
such as will be sought for in vain in the history of David, or any of the Old Testament saints. 
Religious processions, and especially processions with images, whether of a jubilant or sorrowful 
description, are purely Pagan. In the Word of God we find two instances in which there were 
processions practised with Divine sanction; but when the object of these processions is compared 
with the avowed object and character of Romish processions, it will be seen that there is no 
analogy between them and the processions of Rome. The two cases to which I refer are the seven 
days' encompassing of Jericho, and the procession at the bringing up of the ark of God from 
Kirjath-jearim to the city of David. The processions, in the first case, though attended with the 
symbols of Divine worship, were not intended as acts of religious worship, but were a 
miraculous mode of conducting war, when a signal interposition of Divine power was to be 
vouchsafed. In the other, there was simply the removing of the ark, the symbol of Jehovah's 
presence, from the place where, for a long period, it had been allowed to lie in obscurity, to the 
place which the Lord Himself had chosen for its abode; and on such an occasion it was entirely 
fitting and proper that the transference should be made with all religious solemnity. But these 


were simply occasional things, and have nothing at all in common with Romish processions, 
which form a regular part of the Papal ceremonial. But, though Scripture speaks nothing of 
religious processions in the approved worship of God, it refers once and again to Pagan 
processions, and these, too, accompanied with images; and it vividly exposes the folly of those 
who can expect any good from gods that cannot move from one place to another, unless they are 
carried. Speaking of the gods of Babylon, thus saith the prophet Isaiah (46:6), "They lavish gold 
out of the bag, and weigh silver in the balance, and hire a goldsmith; and he maketh it a god: they 
fall down, yea, they worship. They bear him upon the shoulder, they carry him, and set him in 
his place, and he standeth; from his place he shall not remove." In the sculptures of Nineveh 
these processions of idols, borne on men's shoulders, are forcibly represented, and form at once a 
striking illustration of the prophetic language, and of the real origin of the Popish processions. In 
Egypt, the same practice was observed. In "the procession of shrines," says Wilkinson, "it was 
usual to carry the statue of the principal deity, in whose honour the procession took place, 
together with that of the king, and the figures of his ancestors, borne in the same manner, on 
men's shoulders." But not only are the processions in general identified with the Babylonian 
system. We have evidence that these processions trace their origin to that very disastrous event in 
the history of Nimrod, which has already occupied so much of our attention. Wilkinson says 
"that Diodorus speaks of an Ethiopian festival of Jupiter, when his statue was carried in 
procession, probably to commemorate the supposed refuge of the gods in that country, which," 
says he, "may have been a memorial of the flight of the Egyptians with their gods." The passage 
of Diodorus, to which Wilkinson refers, is not very decisive as to the object for which the statues 
of Jupiter and Juno (for Diodorus mentions the shrine of Juno as well as of Jupiter) were 
annually carried into the land of Ethiopia, and then, after a certain period of sojourn there, were 
brought back to Egypt again. But, on comparing it with other passages of antiquity, its object 
very clearly appears. Eustathius says, that at the festival in question, "according to some, the 
Ethiopians used to fetch the images of Zeus, and other gods from the great temple of Zeus at 
Thebes. With these images they went about at a certain period in Libya, and celebrated a 
splendid festival for twelve gods." As the festival was called an Ethiopian festival; and as it was 
Ethiopians that both carried away the idols and brought them back again, this indicates that the 
idols must have been Ethiopian idols; and as we have seen that Egypt was under the power of 
Nimrod, and consequently of the Cushites or Ethiopians, when idolatry was for a time put down 
in Egypt, what would this carrying of the idols into Ethiopia, the land of the Cushites, that was 
solemnly commemorated every year, be, but just the natural result of the temporary suppression 
of the idol- worship inaugurated by Nimrod. In Mexico, we have an account of an exact 
counterpart of this Ethiopian festival. There, at a certain period, the images of the gods were 
carried out of the country in a mourning procession, as if taking their leave of it, and then, after a 
time, they were brought back to it again with every demonstration of joy. In Greece, we find a 
festival of an entirely similar kind, which, while it connects itself with the Ethiopian festival of 
Egypt on the one hand, brings that festival, on the other, into the closest relation to the penitential 
procession of Pope Gregory. Thus we find Potter referring first to a "Delphian festival in 
memory of a JOURNEY of Apollo"; and then under the head of the festival called Apollonia, we 
thus read: "To Apollo, at Aegialea on this account: Apollo having obtained a victory over 
Python, went to Aegialea, accompanied with his sister Diana; but, being frightened from thence, 
fled into Crete. After this, the Aegialeans were infected with an epidemical distemper; and, being 
advised by the prophets to appease the two offended deities, sent SEVEN boys and as many 
virgins to entreat them to return. [Here is the typical germ of 'The Sevenfold Litany' of Pope 


Gregory.] Apollo and Diana accepted their piety, ...and it became a custom to appoint chosen 
boys and virgins, to make a solemn procession, in show, as if they designed to bring back Apollo 
and Diana, which continued till Pausanias' time." The contest between Python and Apollo, in 
Greece, is just the counterpart of that between Typho and Osiris in Egypt; in other words, 
between Shem and Nimrod. Thus we see the real meaning and origin of the Ethiopian festival, 
when the Ethiopians carried away the gods from the Egyptian temples. That festival evidently 
goes back to the time when Nimrod being cut off, idolatry durst not show itself except among the 
devoted adherents of the "Mighty hunter" (who were found in his own family- -the family of 
Cush), when, with great weepings and lamentations, the idolaters fled with their gods on their 
shoulders, to hide themselves where they might. In commemoration of the suppression of 
idolatry, and the unhappy consequences that were supposed to flow from that suppression, the 
first part of the festival, as we get light upon it both from Mexico and Greece, had consisted of a 
procession of mourners; and then the mourning was turned into joy, in memory of the happy 
return of these banished gods to their former exaltation. Truly a worthy origin for Pope Gregory's 
"Sevenfold Litany" and the Popish processions. 

Section II 
Relic Worship 

Nothing is more characteristic of Rome than the worship of relics. Wherever a chapel is opened, 
or a temple consecrated, it cannot be thoroughly complete without some relic or other of he- saint 
or she- saint to give sanctity to it. The relics of the saints and rotten bones of the martyrs form a 
great part of the wealth of the Church. The grossest impostures have been practised in regard to 
such relics; and the most drivelling tales have been told of their wonder-working powers, and 
that too by Fathers of high name in the records of Christendom. Even Augustine, with all his 
philosophical acuteness and zeal against some forms of false doctrine, was deeply infected with 
the grovelling spirit that led to relic worship. Let any one read the stuff with which he concludes 
his famous "City of God," and he will in no wise wonder that Rome has made a saint of him, and 
set him up for the worship of her devotees. Take only a specimen or two of the stories with 
which he bolsters up the prevalent delusions of his day: "When the Bishop Projectius brought the 
relics of St. Stephen to the town called Aquae Tibiltinae, the people came in great crowds to 
honour them. Amongst these was a blind woman, who entreated the people to lead her to the 
bishop who had the HOLY RELICS. They did so, and the bishop gave her some flowers which 
he had in his hand. She took them, and put them to her eyes, and immediately her sight was 
restored, so that she passed speedily on before all the others, no longer requiring to be guided." 
In Augustine's day, the formal "worship" of the relics was not yet established; but the martyrs to 
whom they were supposed to have belonged were already invoked with prayers and 
supplications, and that with the high approval of the Bishop of Hippo, as the following story will 
abundantly show: Here, in Hippo, says he, there was a poor and holy old man, by name 
Florentius, who obtained a living by tailoring. This man once lost his coat, and not being able to 
purchase another to replace it, he came to the shrine of the Twenty Martyrs, in this city, and 
prayed aloud to them, beseeching that they would enable him to get another garment. A crowd of 
silly boys who overheard him, followed him at his departure, scoffing at him, and asking him 
whether he had begged fifty pence from the martyrs to buy a coat. The poor man went silently on 
towards home, and as he passed near the sea, he saw a large fish which had been cast up on the 
sand, and was still panting. The other persons who were present allowed him to take up this fish, 


which he brought to one Catosus, a cook, and a good Christian, who bought it from him for three 
hundred pence. With this he meant to purchase wool, which his wife might spin, and make into a 
garment for him. When the cook cut up the fish, he found within its belly a ring of gold, which 
his conscience persuaded him to give to the poor man from whom he bought the fish. He did so, 
saying, at the same time, "Behold how the Twenty Martyrs have clothed you!" * 

* De Civitate. The story of the fish and the ring is an old Egyptian story. 
(WILKINSON) Catosus, "the good Christian," was evidently a tool of the priests, 
who could afford to give him a ring to put into the fish's belly. The miracle would 
draw worshippers to the shrine of the Twenty Martyrs, and thus bring grist to their 
mill, and amply repay them. 

Thus did the great Augustine inculcate the worship of dead men, and the honouring of their 
wonder-working relics. The "silly children" who "scoffed" at the tailor's prayer seem to have had 
more sense than either the "holy old tailor" or the bishop. Now, if men professing Christianity 
were thus, in the fifth century, paving the way for the worship of all manner of rags and rotten 
bones; in the realms of Heathendom the same worship had flourished for ages before Christian 
saints or martyrs had appeared in the world. In Greece, the superstitious regard to relics, and 
especially to the bones of the deified heroes, was a conspicuous part of the popular idolatry. The 
work of Pausanias, the learned Grecian antiquary, is full of reference to this superstition. Thus, 
of the shoulder-blade of Pelops, we read that, after passing through divers adventures, being 
appointed by the oracle of Delphi, as a divine means of delivering the Eleans from a pestilence 
under which they suffered, it "was committed," as a sacred relic, "to the custody" of the man who 
had fished it out of the sea, and of his posterity after him. The bones of the Trojan Hector were 
preserved as a precious deposit at Thebes. "They" [the Thebans], says Pausanias, "say that his 
[Hector's] bones were brought hither from Troy, in consequence of the following oracle: 
Thebans, who inhabit the city of Cadmus, if you wish to reside in your country, blest with the 
possession of blameless wealth, bring the bones of Hector, the son of Priam, into your dominions 
from Asia, and reverence the hero agreeably to the mandate of Jupiter.'" Many other similar 
instances from the same author might be adduced. The bones thus carefully kept and reverenced 
were all believed to be miracle-working bones. From the earliest periods, the system of 
Buddhism has been propped up by relics, that have wrought miracles at least as well vouched as 
those wrought by the relics of St. Stephen, or by the "Twenty Martyrs." In the "Mahawanso," one 
of the great standards of the Buddhist faith, reference is thus made to the enshrining of the relics 
of Buddha: "The vanquisher of foes having perfected the works to be executed within the relic 
receptacle, convening an assembly of the priesthood, thus addressed them: 'The works that were 
to be executed by me, in the relic receptacle, are completed. Tomorrow, I shall enshrine the 
relics. Lords, bear in mind the relics.'" Who has not heard of the Holy Coat of Treves, and its 
exhibition to the people? From the following, the reader will see that there was an exactly similar 
exhibition of the Holy Coat of Buddha: "Thereupon (the nephew of the Naga Rajah) by his 
supernatural gift, springing up into the air to the height of seven palmyra trees, and stretching out 
his arm brought to the spot where he was poised, the Dupathupo (or shrine) in which the DRESS 
laid aside by Buddho, as Prince Siddhatto, on his entering the priesthood, was enshrined... and 
EXHIBITED IT TO THE PEOPLE." This "Holy Coat" of Buddha was no doubt as genuine, and 
as well entitled to worship, as the "Holy Coat" of Treves. The resemblance does not stop here. It 
is only a year or two ago since the Pope presented to his beloved son, Francis Joseph of Austria, 
a "TOOTH" of "St. Peter," as a mark of his special favour and regard. The teeth of Buddha are in 
equal request among his worshippers. "King of Devas," said a Buddhist missionary, who was 


sent to one of the principal courts of Ceylon to demand a relic or two from the Rajah, "King of 
Devas, thou possessest the right canine tooth relic (of Buddha), as well as the right collar bone of 
the divine teacher. Lord of Devas, demur not in matter involving the salvation of the land of 
Lanka." Then the miraculous efficacy of these relics is shown in the following: "The Saviour of 
the world (Buddha) even after he had attained to Parinibanan or final emancipation (i.e., after his 
death), by means of a corporeal relic, performed infinite acts to the utmost perfection, for the 
spiritual comfort and mundane prosperity of mankind. While the Vanquisher (Jeyus) yet lived, 
what must he not have done?" Now, in the Asiatic Researches, a statement is made in regard to 
these relics of Buddha, which marvellously reveals to us the real origin of this Buddhist relic 
worship. The statement is this: "The bones or limbs of Buddha were scattered all over the world, 
like those of Osiris and Jupiter Zagreus. To collect them was the first duty of his descendants and 
followers, and then to entomb them. Out of filial piety, the remembrance of this mournful search 
was yearly kept up by a fictitious one, with all possible marks of grief and sorrow till a priest 
announced that the sacred relics were at last found. This is practised to this day by several 
Tartarian tribes of the religion of Buddha; and the expression of the bones of the Son of the Spirit 
of heaven is peculiar to the Chinese and some tribes in Tartary." Here, then, it is evident that the 
worship of relics is just a part of those ceremonies instituted to commemorate the tragic death of 
Osiris or Nimrod, who, as the reader may remember, was divided into fourteen pieces, which 
were sent into so many different regions infected by his apostacy and false worship, to operate in 
terrorem upon all who might seek to follow his example. When the apostates regained their 
power, the very first thing they did was to seek for these dismembered relics of the great 
ringleader in idolatry, and to entomb them with every mark of devotion. Thus does Plutarch 
describe the search: "Being acquainted with this even [viz., the dismemberment of Osiris], Isis 
set out once more in search of the scattered members of her husband's body, using a boat made 
of the papyrus rush in order more easily to pass through the lower and fenny parts of the 
country. ..And one reason assigned for the different sepulchres of Osiris shown in Egypt is, that 
wherever any one of his scattered limbs was discovered she buried it on the spot; though others 
suppose that it was owing to an artifice of the queen, who presented each of those cities with an 
image of her husband, in order that, if Typho should overcome Horus in the approaching contest, 
he might be unable to find the real sepulchre. Isis succeeded in recovering all the different 
members, with the exception of one, which had been devoured by the Lepidotus, the Phagrus, 
and the Oxyrhynchus, for which reason these fish are held in abhorrence by the Egyptians. To 
make amends, she consecrated the Phallus, and instituted a solemn festival to its memory." Not 
only does this show the real origin of relic worship it shows also that the multiplication of relics 
can pretend to the most venerable antiquity. If, therefore, Rome can boast that she has sixteen or 
twenty holy coats, seven or eight arms of St. Matthew, two or three heads of St. Peter, this is 
nothing more than Egypt could do in regard to the relics of Osiris. Egypt was covered with 
sepulchres of its martyred god; and many a leg and arm and skull, all vouched to be genuine, 
were exhibited in the rival burying- places for the adoration of the Egyptian faithful. Nay, not 
only were these Egyptian relics sacred themselves, they CONSECRATED THE VERY 
GROUND in which they were entombed. This fact is brought out by Wilkinson, from a 
statement of Plutarch: "The Temple of this deity at Abydos," says he, "was also particularly 
honoured, and so holy was the place considered by the Egyptians, that persons living at some 
distance from it sought, and perhaps with difficulty obtained, permission to possess a sepulchre 
within its Necropolis, in order that, after death, they might repose in GROUND HALLOWED 
BY THE TOMB of this great and mysterious deity." If the places where the relics of Osiris were 


buried were accounted peculiarly holy, it is easy to see how naturally this would give rise to the 
pilgrimages so frequent among the heathen. The reader does not need to be told what merit 
Rome attaches to such pilgrimages to the tombs of saints, and how, in the Middle Ages, one of 
the most favourite ways of washing away sin was to undertake a pilgrimage to the shrine of St. 
Jago di Compostella in Spain, or the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. Now, in the Scripture there is 
not the slightest trace of any such thing as a pilgrimage to the tomb of saint, martyr, prophet, or 
apostle. The very way in which the Lord saw fit to dispose of the body of Moses in burying it 
Himself in the plains of Moab, so that no man should ever known where his sepulchre was, was 
evidently designed to rebuke every such feeling as that from which such pilgrimages arise. And 
considering whence Israel had come, the Egyptian ideas with which they were infected, as shown 
in the matter of the golden calf, and the high reverence they must have entertained for Moses, the 
wisdom of God in so disposing of his body must be apparent. In the land where Israel had so 
long sojourned, there were great and pompous pilgrimages at certain season of the year, and 
these often attended with gross excesses. Herodotus tells us, that in his time the multitude who 
went annually on pilgrimage to Bubastis amounted to 700,000 individuals, and that then more 
wine was drunk than at any other time in the year. Wilkinson thus refers to a similar pilgrimage 
to Philae: "Besides the celebration of the great mysteries which took place at Philae, a grand 
ceremony was performed at a particular time, when the priests, in solemn procession, visited his 
tomb, and crowned it with flowers. Plutarch even pretends that all access to the island was 
forbidden at every other period, and that no bird would fly over it, or fish swim near this 
CONSECRATED GROUND." This seems not to have been a procession merely of the priests in 
the immediate neighbourhood of the tomb, but a truly national pilgrimage; for, says Diodorus, 
"the sepulchre of Osiris at Philae is revered by all the priests throughout Egypt." We have not the 
same minute information about the relic worship in Assyria or Babylon; but we have enough to 
show that, as it was the Babylonian god that was worshipped in Egypt under the name of Osiris, 
so in his own country there was the same superstitious reverence paid to his relics. We have seen 
already, that when the Babylonian Zoroaster died, he was said voluntarily to have given his life 
as a sacrifice, and to have "charged his countrymen to preserve his remains," assuring them that 
on the observance or neglect of this dying command, the fate of their empire would hinge. And, 
accordingly, we learn from Ovid, that the "Busta Nini," or "Tomb of Ninus," long ages 
thereafter, was one of the monuments of Babylon. Now, in comparing the death and fabled 
resurrection of the false Messiah with the death and resurrection of the true, when he actually 
appeared, it will be found that there is a very remarkable contrast. When the false Messiah died, 
limb was severed from limb, and his bones were scattered over the country. When the death of 
the true Messiah took place, Providence so arranged it that the body should be kept entire, and 
that the prophetic word should be exactly fulfilled-- "a bone of Him shall not be broken." When, 
again, the false Messiah was pretended to have had a resurrection, that resurrection was in a new 
body, while the old body, with all its members, was left behind, thereby showing that the 
resurrection was nothing but a pretence and a sham. When, however, the true Messiah was 
"declared to be the Son of God with power, by the resurrection from the dead," the tomb, though 
jealously watched by the armed unbelieving soldiery of Rome, was found to be absolutely 
empty, and no dead body of the Lord was ever afterwards found, or even pretended to have been 
found. The resurrection of Christ, therefore, stands on a very different footing from the 
resurrection of Osiris. Of the body of Christ, of course, in the nature of the case, there could be 
no relics. Rome, however to carry out the Babylonian system, has supplied the deficiency by 
means of the relics of the saints; and now the relics of St. Peter and St. Paul, of St. Thomas 


A'Beckett and St. Lawrence O'Toole, occupy the very same place in the worship of the Papacy as 
the relics of Osiris in Egypt, or of Zoroaster in Babylon. 

Section III 
The Clothing and Crowning of Images 

In the Church of Rome, the clothing and crowning of images form no insignificant part of the 
ceremonial. The sacred images are not represented, like ordinary statues, with the garments 
formed of the same material as themselves, but they have garments put on them from time to 
time, like ordinary mortals of living flesh and blood. Great expense is often lavished on their 
drapery; and those who present to them splendid robes are believed thereby to gain their signal 
favour, and to lay up a large stock of merit for themselves. Thus, in September, 1852, we find the 
duke and Duchess of Montpensier celebrated in the Tablet, not only for their charity in "giving 
3000 reals in alms to the poor," but especially, and above all, for their piety in "presenting the 
Virgin with a magnificent dress of tissue of gold, with white lace and a silver crown." Somewhat 
about the same time the piety of the dissolute Queen of Spain was testified by a similar 
benefaction, when she deposited at the feet of the Queen of Heaven the homage of the dress and 
jewels she wore on a previous occasion of solemn thanksgiving, as well as the dress in which she 
was attired when she was stabbed by the assassin Merino. "The mantle," says the Spanish journal 
Espana, "exhibited the marks of the wound, and its ermine lining was stained with the precious 
blood of Her Majesty. In the basket (that bore the dresses) were likewise the jewels which 
adorned Her Majesty's head and breast. Among them was a diamond stomacher, so exquisitely 
wrought, and so dazzling, that it appeared to be wrought of a single stone." This is all sufficiently 
childish, and presents human nature in a most humiliating aspect; but it is just copied from the 
old Pagan worship. The same clothing and adorning of the gods went on in Egypt, and there 
were sacred persons who alone could be permitted to interfere with so high a function. Thus, in 
the Rosetta Stone we find these sacred functionaries distinctly referred to: "The chief priests and 
prophets, and those who have access to the adytum to clothe the gods,.. .assembled in the temple 
at Memphis, established the following decree." The "clothing of the gods" occupied an equally 
important place in the sacred ceremonial of ancient Greece. Thus, we find Pausanias referring to 
a present made to Minerva: "In after times Laodice, the daughter of Agapenor, sent a veil to 
Tegea, to Minerva Alea." The epigram [inscription] on this offering indicates, at the same time, 
the origin of Laodice:-- 

"Laodice, from Cyprus, the divine, 

To her paternal wide-extended land, 

This veil- -an offering to Minerva- -sent." 

Thus, also, when Hecuba, the Trojan queen, in the instance already referred to, was directed to 
lead the penitential procession through the streets of Troy to Minverva's temple, she was 
commanded not to go empty-handed, but to carry along with her, as her most acceptable 
offering:- - 

"The largest mantle your full wardrobes hold, 
Most prized for art, and laboured o'er with gold." 

The royal lady punctually obeyed:-- 


"The Phrygian queen to her rich wardrobe went, 

Where treasured odours breathed a costly scent; 

There lay the vestures of no vulgar art; 

Sidonian maids embroidered every part, 

Whom from soft Sydon youthful Paris bore, 

With Helen touching on the Tyrian shore. 

Here, as the Queen revolved with careful eyes 

The various textures and the various dyes, 

She chose a veil that shone superior far, 

And glowed refulgent as the morning star." 

There is surely a wonderful resemblance here between the piety of the Queen of Troy and that of 
the Queen of Spain. Now, in ancient Paganism there was a mystery couched under the clothing 
of the gods. If gods and goddesses were so much pleased by being clothed, it was because there 
had once been a time in their history when they stood greatly in need of clothing. Yes, it can be 
distinctly established, as has been already hinted, that ultimately the great god and great goddess 
of Heathenism, while the facts of their own history were interwoven with their idolatrous system, 
were worshipped also as incarnations of our great progenitors, whose disastrous fall stripped 
them of their primeval glory, and made it needful that the hand Divine should cover their 
nakedness with clothing specially prepared for them. I cannot enter here into an elaborate proof 
of this point; but let the statement of Herodotus be pondered in regard to the annual ceremony, 
observed in Egypt, of slaying a ram, and clothing the FATHER OF THE GODS with its skin. 
Compare this statement with the Divine record in Genesis about the clothing of the "Father of 
Mankind" in a coat of sheepskin; and after all that we have seen of the deification of dead men, 
can there be a doubt what it was that was thus annually commemorated? Nimrod himself, when 
he was cut in pieces, was necessarily stripped. That exposure was identified with the nakedness 
of Noah, and ultimately with that of Adam. His sufferings were represented as voluntarily 
undergone for the good of mankind. His nakedness, therefore, and the nakedness of the "Father 
of the gods," of whom he was an incarnation, was held to be a voluntary humiliation too. When, 
therefore, his suffering was over, and his humiliation past, the clothing in which he was invested 
was regarded as a meritorious clothing, available not only for himself, but for all who were 
initiated in his mysteries. In the sacred rites of the Babylonian god, both the exposure and the 
clothing that were represented as having taken place, in his own history, were repeated on all his 
worshippers, in accordance with the statement of Firmicus, that the initiated underwent what 
their god had undergone. First, after being duly prepared by magic rites and ceremonies, they 
were ushered, in a state of absolute nudity, into the innermost recesses of the temple. This 
appears from the following statement of Proclus: "In the most holy of the mysteries, they say that 
the mystics at first meet with the many- shaped genera [i.e., with evil demons], which are hurled 
forth before the gods: but on entering the interior parts of the temple, unmoved and guarded by 
the mystic rites, they genuinely receive in their bosom divine illumination, and, DIVESTED OF 
THEIR GARMENTS, participate, as they would say, of a divine nature." When the initiated, 
thus "illuminated" and made partakers of a "divine nature," after being "divested of their 
garments," were clothed anew, the garments with which they were invested were looked upon as 
"sacred garments," and possessing distinguished virtues. "The coat of skin" with which the 
Father of mankind was divinely invested after he was made so painfully sensible of his 
nakedness, was, as all intelligent theologians admit, a typical emblem of the glorious 
righteousness of Christ-- "the garment of salvation," which is "unto all and upon all them that 


believe." The garments put upon the initiated after their disrobing of their former clothes, were 
evidently intended as a counterfeit of the same. "The garments of those initiated in the Eleusinian 
Mysteries," says Potter, "were accounted sacred, and of no less efficacy to avert evils than 
charms and incantations. They were never cast off till completely worn out." And of course, if 
possible, in these "sacred garments" they were buried; for Herodotus, speaking of Egypt, whence 
these mysteries were derived, tells us that "religion" prescribed the garments of the dead. The 
efficacy of "sacred garments" as a means of salvation and delivering from evil in the unseen and 
eternal world, occupies a foremost place in many religions. Thus the Parsees, the fundamental 
elements of whose system came from the Chaldean Zoroaster, believe that "the sadra or sacred 
vest" tends essentially to "preserve the departed soul from the calamities accruing from 
Ahriman," or the Devil; and they represent those who neglect the use of this "sacred vest" as 
suffering in their souls, and "uttering the most dreadful and appalling cries," on account of the 
torments inflicted on them "by all kinds of reptiles and noxious animals, who assail them with 
their teeth and stings, and give them not a moment's respite." What could have ever led mankind 
to attribute such virtue to a 'sacred vest"! If it be admitted that it is just a perversion of the 
"sacred garment" put on our first parents, all is clear. This, too, accounts for the superstitious 
feeling in the Papacy, otherwise so unaccountable, that led so many in the dark ages to fortify 
themselves against the fears of the judgment to come, by seeking to be buried in a monk's dress. 
"To be buried in a friar's cast-off habit, accompanied by letters enrolling the deceased in a 
monastic order, was accounted a sure deliverance from eternal condemnation! In 'Piers the 
Ploughman's Creed,' a friar is described as wheedling a poor man out of his money by assuring 
him that, if he will only contribute to his monastery, 

'St. Francis himself shall fold thee in his cope, 
And present thee to the Trinity, and pray for thy sins.'" 

In virtue of the same superstitious belief, King John of England was buried in a monk's cowl; 
and many a royal and noble personage besides, "before life and immortality" were anew 
"brought to light" at the Reformation, could think of no better way to cover their naked and 
polluted souls in prospect of death, than by wrapping themselves in the garment of some monk 
or friar as unholy as themselves. Now, all these refuges of lies, in Popery as well as Paganism, 
taken in connection with the clothing of the saints of the one system, and of the gods of the other, 
when traced to their source, show that since sin entered the world, man has ever felt the need of a 
better righteousness than his own to cover him, and that the time was when all the tribes of the 
earth knew that the only righteousness that could avail for such a purpose was "the righteousness 
of God," and that of "God manifest in the flesh. " 

Intimately connected with the "clothing of the images of the saints" is also the "crowning" of 
them. For the last two centuries, in the Popish communion, the festivals for crowning the "sacred 
images" have been more and more celebrated. In Florence, a few years ago, the image of the 
Madonna with the child in her arms was "crowned" with unusual pomp and solemnity. Now, this 
too arose out of the facts commemorated in the history of Bacchus or Osiris. As Nimrod was the 
first king after the Flood, so Bacchus was celebrated as the first who wore a crown. * 

* PLINY, Hist. Nat. Under the name of Saturn, also, the same thing was attributed 
to Nimrod. 

When, however, he fell into the hands of his enemies, as he was stripped of all his glory and 
power, he was stripped also of his crown. The "Falling of the crown from the head of Osiris" was 


specially commemorated in Egypt. That crown at different times was represented in different 

ways, but in the most famous myth of Osiris it was represented as a "Melilot garland. " Melilot is 

a species of trefoil; and trefoil in the Pagan system was one of the emblems of the Trinity. 

Among the Tractarians at this day, trefoil is used in the same symbolical sense as it has long 

been in the Papacy, from which Puseyism has borrowed it. Thus, in a blasphemous Popish 

representation of what is called God the Father (of the fourteenth century), we find him 

represented as wearing a crown with three points, each of which is surmounted with a leaf of 

white clover ( Fig. 39) . But long before Tractarianism or Romanism was known, trefoil was a 

sacred symbol. The clover leaf was evidently a symbol of high import among the ancient 

Tig. 59. 

Fig. 39: Popish Image of "God," with Clover Leaf 

From DIDRON's Iconography, vol. i. p. 296. 

Persians; for thus we find Herodotus referring to it, in describing the rites of the Persian Magi-- 
"If any (Persian) intends to offer to a god, he leads the animal to a consecrated spot. Then, 
dividing the victim into parts, he boils the flesh, and lays it upon the most tender herbs, 
especially TREFOIL. This done, a magus --without a magus no sacrifice can be performed- -sings 
a sacred hymn." In Greece, the clover, or trefoil, in some form or other, had also occupied an 
important place; for the rod of Mercury, the conductor of souls, to which such potency was 
ascribed, was called "Rabdos Tripetelos," or "the three-leaved rod." Among the British Druids 
the white clover leaf was held in high esteem as an emblem of their Triune God, and was 
borrowed from the same Babylonian source as the rest of their religion. The Melilot, or trefoil 
garland, then, with which the head of Osiris was bound, was the crown of the Trinity--the crown 
set on his head as the representative of the Eternal-- "The crown of all the earth," in accordance 
with the voice divine at his birth, "The Lord of all the earth is born." Now, as that "Melilot 
garland," that crown of universal dominion, fell "from his head" before his death, so, when he 
rose to new life, the crown must be again set upon his head, and his universal dominion solemnly 
avouched. Hence, therefore, came the solemn crowning of the statues of the great god, and also 
the laying of the "chaplet" on his altar, as a trophy of his recovered "dominion." But if the great 


god was crowned, it was needful also that the great goddess should receive a similar honour. 
Therefore it was fabled that when Bacchus carried his wife Ariadne to heaven, in token of the 
high dignity bestowed upon her, he set a crown upon her head; and the remembrance of this 
crowning of the wife of the Babylonian god is perpetuated to this hour by the well-known figure 
in the sphere called Ariadnoea corona, or "Ariadne's crown." This is, beyond question, the real 
source of the Popish rite of crowning the image of the Virgin. 

From the fact that the Melilot garland occupied so conspicuous a place in the myth of Osiris, and 
that the "chaplet" was laid on his altar, and his tomb was "crowned" with flowers, arose the 
custom, so prevalent in heathenism, of adorning the altars of the gods with "chaplets" of all sorts, 
and with a gay profusion of flowers. Side by side with this reason for decorating the altars with 
flowers, there was also another. When in 

"That fair field 
Of Enna, Proserpine gathering flowers, 
Herself, a fairer flower, by gloom Dis, 

Was gathered;" 

and all the flowers she had stored up in her lap were lost, the loss thereby sustained by the world 
not only drew forth her own tears, but was lamented in the Mysteries as a loss of no ordinary 
kind, a loss which not only stripped her of her own spiritual glory, but blasted the fertility and 
beauty of the earth itself. * 

* OVID, Metamorphoses. Ovid speaks of the tears which Proserpine shed when, 
on her robe being torn from top to bottom, all the flowers which she had been 
gathering up in it fell to the ground, as showing only the simplicity of a girlish 
mind. But this is evidently only for the uninitiated. The lamentations of Ceres, 
which were intimately connected with the fall of these flowers, and the curse 
upon the ground that immediately followed, indicated something entirely 
different. But on that I cannot enter here. 

That loss, however, the wife of Nimrod, under the name of Astarte, or Venus, was believed to 
have more than repaired. Therefore, while the sacred "chaplet" of the discrowned god was placed 
in triumph anew on his head and on his altars, the recovered flowers which Proserpine had lost 
were also laid on these altars along with it, in token of gratitude to that mother of grace and 
goodness, for the beauty and temporal blessings that the earth owed to her interposition and love. 
In Pagan Rome especially this was the case. The altars were profusely adorned with flowers. 
From that source directly the Papacy has borrowed the custom of adorning the altar with flowers; 
and from the Papacy, Puseyism, in Protestant England, is labouring to introduce the custom 
among ourselves. But, viewing it in connection with its source, surely men with the slightest 
spark of Christian feeling may well blush to think of such a thing. It is not only opposed to the 
genius of the Gospel dispensation, which requires that they who worship God, who is a Spirit, 
"worship Him in spirit and in truth"; but it is a direct symbolising with those who rejoiced in the 
re-establishment of Paganism in opposition to the worship of the one living and true God. 


Section IV 
The Rosary and the Worship of the Sacred Heart 

Every one knows how thoroughly Romanist is the use of the rosary; and how the devotees of 
Rome mechanically tell their prayers upon their beads. The rosary, however, is no invention of 
the Papacy. It is of the highest antiquity, and almost universally found among Pagan nations. The 
rosary was used as a sacred instrument among the ancient Mexicans. It is commonly employed 
among the Brahmins of Hindustan; and in the Hindoo sacred books reference is made to it again 
and again. Thus, in an account of the death of Sati, the wife of Shiva, we find the rosary 
introduced: "On hearing of this event, Shiva fainted from grief; then, having recovered, he 
hastened to the banks of the river of heaven, where he beheld lying the body of his beloved Sati, 
arrayed in white garments, holding a rosary in her hand, and glowing with splendour, bright as 
burnished gold." In Thibet it has been used from time immemorial, and among all the millions in 
the East that adhere to the Buddhist faith. The following, from Sir John F. Davis, will show how 
it is employed in China: "From the Tartar religion of the Lamas, the rosary of 108 beads has 
become a part of the ceremonial dress attached to the nine grades of official rank. It consists of a 
necklace of stones and coral, nearly as large as a pigeon's egg, descending to the waist, and 
distinguished by various beads, according to the quality of the wearer. There is a small rosary of 
eighteen beads, of inferior size, with which the bonzes count their prayers and ejaculations 
exactly as in the Romish ritual. The laity in China sometimes wear this at the wrist, perfumed 
with musk, and give it the name of Heang-choo, or fragrant beads." In Asiatic Greece the rosary 
was commonly used, as may be seen from the image of the Ephesian Diana. In Pagan Rome the 
same appears to have been the case. The necklaces which the Roman ladies wore were not 
merely ornamental bands about the neck, but hung down the breast, just as the modern rosaries 
do; and the name by which they were called indicates the use to which they were applied. 
"Monile," the ordinary word for a necklace, can have no other meaning than that of a 
"Remembrancer." Now, whatever might be the pretence, in the first instance, for the introduction 
of such "Rosaries" or "Remembrancers," the very idea of such a thing is thoroughly Pagan. * It 
supposes that a certain number of prayers must be regularly gone over; it overlooks the grand 
demand which God makes for the heart, and leads those who use them to believe that form and 
routine are everything, and that "they must be heard for their much speaking." 

* "Rosary" itself seems to be from the Chaldee "Ro," "thought," and "Shareh," 

In the Church of Rome a new kind of devotion has of late been largely introduced, in which the 
beads play an important part, and which shows what new and additional strides in the direction 
of the old Babylonian Paganism the Papacy every day is steadily making. I refer to the "Rosary 
of the Sacred Heart." It is not very long since the worship of the "Sacred Heart" was first 
introduced; and now, everywhere it is the favourite worship. It was so in ancient Babylon, as is 
evident from the Babylonian system as it appeared in Egypt. There also a "Sacred Heart" was 
venerated. The "Heart" was one of the sacred symbols of Osiris when he was born again, and 
appeared as Harpocrates, or the infant divinity, * borne in the arms of his mother Isis. 

* The name Harpocrates, as shown by Bunsen, signifies "Horus, the child." 

Therefore, the fruit of the Egyptian Persea was peculiarly sacred to him, from its resemblance to 
the "HUMAN HEART." Hence this infant divinity was frequently represented with a heart, or 
the heart-shaped fruit of the Persea, in one of his hands (Fig. 40 ). The following extract, from 


John Bell's criticism on the antiques in the Picture Gallery of Florence, will show that the boyish 
divinity had been represented elsewhere also in ancient times in the same manner. Speaking of a 
statue of Cupid, he says it is "a fair, full, fleshy, round boy, in fine and sportive action, tossing 
back a heart." Thus the boy- god came to be regarded as the "god of the heart," in other words, as 
Cupid, or the god of love. To identify this infant divinity, with his father "the mighty hunter," he 
was equipped with "bow and arrows"; and in the hands of the poets, for the amusement of the 
profane vulgar, this sportive boy-god was celebrated as taking aim with his gold-tipped shafts at 
the hearts of mankind. His real character, however, as the above statement shows, and as we 
have seen reason already to conclude, was far higher and of a very different kind. He was the 
woman's seed. Venus and her son Cupid, then, were none other than the Madonna and the child. 
Looking at the subject in this light, the real force and meaning of the language will appear, which 
Virgil puts into the mouth of Venus, when addressing the youthful Cupid:-- 

"My son, my strength, whose mighty power alone 

Controls the thunderer on his awful throne, 

To thee thy much afflicted mother flies, 

And on thy succour and thy faith relies." 

Fig. 40: Cupid, with Symbolic "Heart" 

Pompeii, vol. ii. p. 177 

From what we have seen already as to the power and glory of the Goddess Mother being entirely 
built on the divine character attributed to her Son, the reader must see how exactly this is brought 
out, when the Son is called "THE STRENGTH" of his Mother. As the boy- god, whose symbol 
was the heart, was recognised as the god of childhood, this very satisfactorily accounts for one of 
the peculiar customs of the Romans. Kennett tells us, in his Antiquities, that the Roman youths, 
in their tender years, used to wear a golden ornament suspended from their necks, called bulla, 
which was hollow, and heart- shaped. Barker, in his work on Cilicia, while admitting that the 
Roman bulla was heart- shaped, further states, that "it was usual at the birth of a child to name it 
after some divine personage, who was supposed to receive it under his care"; but that the "name 
was not retained beyond infancy, when the bulla was given up." Who so likely to be the god 


under whose guardianship the Roman children were put, as the god under one or other of his 
many names whose express symbol they wore, and who, while he was recognised as the great 
and mighty war- god, who also exhibited himself in his favourite form as a little child? 

Fig. 41: Vishnu, with Symbolic "Heart" 

From MOOR's Pantheon, Plate 11, Fig. 6. 

The veneration of the "sacred heart" seems also to have extended to India, for there Vishnu, the 
Mediatorial god, in one of his forms, with the mark of the wound in his foot, in consequence of 
which he died, and for which such lamentation is annually made, is represented as wearing a 
heart suspended on his breast (Fig. 41) . It is asked, How came it that the "Heart" became the 
recognised symbol of the Child of the great Mother? The answer is, "The Heart" in Chaldee is 
"BEL"; and as, at first, after the check given to idolatry, almost all the most important elements 
of the Chaldean system were introduced under a veil, so under that veil they continued to be 
shrouded from the gaze of the uninitiated, after the first reason--the reason of fear--had long 
ceased to operate. Now, the worship of the "Sacred Heart" was just, under a symbol, the worship 
of the "Sacred Bel," that mighty one of Babylon, who had died a martyr for idolatry; for 
Harpocrates, or Horus, the infant god, was regarded as Bel, born again. That this was in very 
deed the case, the following extract from Taylor, in one of his notes to his translation of the 
Orphic Hymns, will show. "While Bacchus," says he, was "beholding himself" with admiration 
"in a mirror, he was miserably torn to pieces by the Titans, who, not content with this cruelty, 
first boiled his members in water, and afterwards roasted them in the fire; but while they were 
tasting his flesh thus dressed, Jupiter, excited by the steam, and perceiving the cruelty of the 
deed, hurled his thunder at the Titans, but committed his members to Apollo, the brother of 


Bacchus, that they might be properly interred. And this being performed, Dionysius [i.e., 
Bacchus], (whose HEART, during his laceration, was snatched away by Minerva and preserved) 
by a new REGENERATION, again emerged, and he being restored to his pristine life and 
integrity, afterwards filled up the number of the gods." This surely shows, in a striking light, the 
peculiar sacredness of the heart of Bacchus; and that the regeneration of his heart has the very 
meaning I have attached to it--viz., the new birth or new incarnation of Nimrod or Bel. When 
Bel, however was born again as a child, he was, as we have seen, represented as an incarnation 
of the sun. Therefore, to indicate his connection with the fiery and burning sun, the "sacred 
heart" was frequently represented as a "heart of flame." So the "Sacred Heart" of Rome is 
actually worshipped as & flaming heart, as may be seen on the rosaries devoted to that worship. 
Of what use, then, is it to say that the "Sacred Heart" which Rome worships is called by the 
name of "Jesus," when not only is the devotion given to a material image borrowed from the 
worship of the Babylonian Antichrist, but when the attributes ascribed to that "Jesus" are not the 
attributes of the living and loving Saviour, but the genuine attributes of the ancient Moloch or 

Section V 
Lamps and Wax- Candles 

Another peculiarity of the Papal worship is the use of lamps and wax-candles. If the Madonna 
and child are set up in a niche, they must have a lamp to burn before them; if mass is to be 
celebrated, though in broad daylight, there must be wax-candles lighted on the altar; if a grand 
procession is to be formed, it cannot be thorough and complete without lighted tapers to grace 
the goodly show. The use of these lamps and tapers comes from the same source as all the rest of 
the Papal superstition. That which caused the "Heart," when it became an emblem of the 
incarnate Son, to be represented as a heart on fire, required also that burning lamps and lighted 
candles should form part of the worship of that Son; for so, according to the established rites of 
Zoroaster, was the sun-god worshipped. When every Egyptian on the same night was required to 
light a lamp before his house in the open air, this was an act of homage to the sun, that had veiled 
its glory by enshrouding itself in a human form. When the Yezidis of Koordistan, at this day, 
once a year celebrate their festival of "burning lamps," that, too, is to the honour of Sheikh 
Shems, or the Sun. Now, what on these high occasions was done on a grand scale was also done 
on a smaller scale, in the individual acts of worship to their god, by the lighting of lamps and 
tapers before the favourite divinity. In Babylon, this practice had been exceedingly prevalent, as 
we learn from the Apocryphal writer of the Book of Baruch. "They (the Babylonians)," says he, 
"light up lamps to their gods, and that in greater numbers, too, than they do for themselves, 
although the gods cannot see one of them, and are senseless as the beams of their houses." In 
Pagan Rome, the same practice was observed. Thus we find Licinius, the Pagan Emperor, before 
joining battle with Constantine, his rival, calling a council of his friends in a thick wood, and 
there offering sacrifices to his gods, "lighting up wax-tapers" before them, and at the same time, 
in his speech, giving his gods a hint, that if they did not give him the victory against Constantine, 
his enemy and theirs, he would be under the necessity of abandoning their worship, and lighting 
up no more "wax-tapers to their honour." In the Pagan processions, also, at Rome, the wax- 
candles largely figured. "At these solemnities," says Dr. Middleton, referring to Apuleius as his 
authority, "at these solemnities, the chief magistrate used frequently to assist, in robes of 
ceremony, attended by the priests in surplices, with wax-candles in their hands, carrying upon a 


pageant or thensa, the images of their gods, dressed out in their best clothes; these were usually 
followed by the principal youth of the place, in white linen vestments or surplices, singing 
hymns in honour of the gods whose festivals they were celebrating, accompanied by crowds of 
all sorts that were initiated in the same religion, all with flambeaux or wax -candles in their 
hands." Now, so thoroughly and exclusively Pagan was this custom of lighting up lamps and 
candles in daylight, that we find Christian writers, such as Lactantius, in the fourth century, 
exposing the absurdity of the practice, and deriding the Romans "for lighting up candles to God, 
as if He lived in the dark." Had such a custom at that time gained the least footing among 
Christians, Lactantius could never have ridiculed it as he does, as a practice peculiar to 
Paganism. But what was unknown to the Christian Church in the beginning of the fourth century, 
soon thereafter began to creep in, and now forms one of the most marked peculiarities of that 
community that boasts that it is the "Mother and mistress of all Churches." 

While Rome uses both lamps and wax-candles in her sacred rites, it is evident, however, that she 
attributes some pre-eminent virtue to the latter above all other lights. Up to the time of the 
Council of Trent, she thus prayed on Easter Eve, at the blessing of the Easter candles: "Calling 
upon thee in thy works, this holy Eve of Easter, we offer most humbly unto thy Majesty this 
sacrifice; namely, a fire not defiled with the fat of flesh, nor polluted with unholy oil or ointment, 
nor attained with any profane fire; but we offer unto thee with obedience, proceeding from 
perfect devotion, a fire of wrought WAX and wick, kindled and made to burn in honour of thy 
name. This so great a MYSTERY therefore, and the marvellous sacrament of this holy eve, must 
needs be extolled with due and deserved praises." That there was some occult "Mystery," as is 
here declared, couched under the "wax-candles," in the original system of idolatry, from which 
Rome derived its ritual, may be well believed, when it is observed with what unanimity nations 
the most remote have agreed to use wax-candles in their sacred rites. Among the Tungusians, 
near the Lake Baikal in Siberia, 'wax-tapers are placed before the Burchans," the gods or idols 
of that country. In the Molucca Islands, wax-tapers are used in the worship of Nito, or Devil, 
whom these islanders adore. "Twenty or thirty persons having assembled," says Hurd, "they 
summon the Nito, by beating a small consecrated drum, whilst two or more of the company light 
up wax-tapers, and pronounce several mysterious words, which they consider as able to conjure 
him up." In the worship of Ceylon, the use of wax-candles is an indispensable requisite. "In 
Ceylon," says the same author, "some devotees, who are not priests, erect chapels for themselves, 
but in each of them they are obliged to have an image of Buddha, and light up tapers or wax- 
candles before it, and adorn it with flowers." A practice thus so general must have come from 
some primeval source, and must have originally had some mystic reason at the bottom of it. The 
wax-candle was, in fact, a hieroglyphic, like so many other things which we have already seen, 
and was intended to exhibit the Babylonian god in one of the essential characters of the Great 
Mediator. The classic reader may remember that one of the gods of primeval antiquity was called 
Ouranos, * that is, "The Enlightener." 

* For Aor or our, "light," and an, "to act upon" or produce, the same as our 
English particle en, "to make." Ouranos, then, is "The Enlightener." This Ouranos 
is, by Sanchuniathon, the Phoenician, called the son of Elioun--i.e., as he himself, 
or Philo-Byblius, interprets the name, "The Most High." (SANCH) Ouranos, in 
the physical sense, is "The Shiner"; and by Hesychius it is made equivalent to 
Kronos, which also has the same meaning, for Krn, the verb from which it comes, 
signifies either "to put forth horns," or "to send forth rays of light"; and, therefore, 
while the epithet Kronos, or "The Horned One," had primarily reference to the 


physical power of Nimrod as a "mighty" king; when that king was deified, and 
made "Lord of Heaven," that name, Kronos, was still applied to him in his new 
character as "The Shiner or Lightgiver." The distinction made by Hesiod between 
Ouranos and Kronos, is no argument against the real substantial identity of these 
divinities originally as Pagan divinities; for Herodotus states that Hesiod had a 
hand in "inventing a theogony" for the Greeks, which implies that some at least of 
the details of that theogony must have come from his own fancy; and, on 
examination, it will be found, when the veil of allegory is removed, that Hesiod's 
"Ouranos," though introduced as one of the Pagan gods, was really at bottom the 
"God of Heaven," the living and true God. 

Fig. 42: Lion of Mithra, with Bee in its Mouth 

From HYDE, De Vetere Religione Persarum, p. 133. 

In this very character was Nimrod worshipped when he was deified. As the Sun- god he was 
regarded not only as the illuminator of the material world, but as the enlightener of the souls of 
men, for he was recognised as the revealer of "goodness and truth." It is evident, from the Old 
Testament, not less than the New, that the proper and personal name of our Lord Jesus Christ is, 
"The Word of God," as the Revealer of the heart and counsels of the Godhead. Now, to identify 
the Sun-god with the Great Revealer of the Godhead, while under the name of Mithra, he was 
exhibited in sculpture as a Lion; that Lion had a Bee represented between his lips (Fig. AT ). The 
bee between the lips of the sun-god was intended to point him out as "the Word"; for Dabar, the 
expression which signifies in Chaldee a "Bee," signifies also a "Word"; and the position of that 
bee in the mouth leaves no doubt as to the idea intended to be conveyed. It was intended to 
impress the belief that Mithra (who, says Plutarch, was worshipped as Mesites, "The Mediator"), 
in his character as Ouranos, "The Enlightener," was no other than that glorious one of whom the 
Evangelist John says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God... In Him was life; and the life was THE 
LIGHT OF MEN." The Lord Jesus Christ ever was the revealer of the Godhead, and must have 
been known to the patriarchs as such; for the same Evangelist says, "No man hath seen God at 
any time: the only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared" that is, 
He hath revealed "Him." Before the Saviour came, the ancient Jews commonly spoke of the 
Messiah, or the Son of God, under the name of Dabar, or the "Word." This will appear from a 


consideration of what is stated in the 3rd chapter of 1st Samuel. In the first verse of that chapter 
it is said, "The WORD of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision," that is, 
in consequence of the sin of Eli, the Lord had not, for a long time, revealed Himself in vision to 
him, as He did to the prophets. When the Lord had called Samuel, this "vision" of the God of 
Israel was restored (though not to Eli), for it is said in the last verse (v 21), "And the Lord 
APPEARED again in Shiloh; for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel by the WORD of the 
Lord." Although the Lord spake to Samuel, this language implies more than speech, for it is said, 
"The LORD appeared"--i.e., was seen. When the Lord revealed Himself, or was seen by Samuel, 
it is said that it was "by (Dabar) the Word of the Lord." The "Word of the Lord" to be visible, 
must have been the personal "Word of God," that is, Christ. * 

* After the Babylonish captivity, as the Chaldee Targums or Paraphrases of the 
Old Testament show, Christ was commonly called by the title "The Word of the 
Lord." In these Targums of later Chaldee, the term for "The Word" is "Mimra"; 
but this word, though a synonym for that which is used in the Hebrew Scriptures, 
is never used there. Dabar is the word employed. This is so well recognised that, 
in the Hebrew translation of John's Gospel in Bagster's Polyglott, the first verse 
runs thus: "In the beginning was the Word (Dabar)." 

This had evidently been a primitive name by which He was known; and therefore it is not 
wonderful that Plato should speak of the second person of his Trinity under the name of the 
Logos, which is just a translation of "Dabar," or "the Word." Now, the light of the wax-candle, as 
the light from Dabar, "the Bee," was set up as the substitute of the light of Dabar, "the Word." 
Thus the apostates turned away from the "True Light," and set up a shadow in His stead. That 
this was really the case is plain; for, says Crabb, speaking of Saturn, "on his altars were placed 
wax-tapers lighted, because by Saturn men were reduced from the darkness of error to the light 
of truth." In Asiatic Greece, the Babylonian god was evidently recognised as the Light- giving 
"Word," for there we find the Bee occupying such a position as makes it very clear that it was a 
symbol of the great Revealer. Thus we find Muller referring to the symbols connected with the 
worship of fie Ephesian Diana: "Her constant symbol is the bee, which is not otherwise 
attributed to Diana... The chief priest himself was called Essen, or the king-bee." The character of 
the chief priest shows the character of the god he represented. The contemplar divinity of Diana, 
the tower-bearing goddess, was of course the same divinity as invariably accompanied the 
Babylonian goddess: and this title of the priest shows that the Bee which appeared on her medals 
was just another symbol for her child, as the "Seed of the Woman," in his assumed character, as 
Dabar, "The Word" that enlightened the souls of men. That this is the precise "Mystery" couched 
under the wax-candles burning on the altars of the Papacy, we have very remarkable evidence 
from its own formularies; for, in the very same place in which the "Mystery" of the wax-candle 
is spoken of, thus does Rome refer to the Bee, by which the wax is produced: "Forasmuch as we 
do marvellously wonder, in considering the first beginning of this substance, to wit, wax-tapers, 
then must we of necessity greatly extol the original of Bees, for... they gather the flowers with 
their feet, yet the flowers are not injured thereby; they bring forth no young ones, but deliver 
their young swarms through their mouths, like as Christ (for a wonderful example) is proceeded 
from His Father's MOUTH." * 

* Review of Epistle of DR. GENTIANUSHARVETofLouvaine. This work, which 
is commonly called The Beehive of the Roman Church, contains the original Latin 
of the passage translated above. The passage in question is to be found in at least 


two Roman Missals, which, however, are now very rare--viz., one printed at 
Vienna in 1506, with which the quotation in the text has been compared and 
verified; and one printed at Venice in 1522. These dates are antecedent to the 
establishment of the Reformation; and it appears that this passage was expunged 
from subsequent editions, as being unfit to stand the searching scrutiny to which 
everything in regard to religion was subjected in consequence of that great event. 
The ceremonial of blessing the candles, however, which has no place in the 
Pontificale Romanum in the Edinburgh Advocates' Library, is to be found in the 
Pontificale Romanum, Venice, 1542, and in Pontificale Romanum, Venice, 1572. 
In the ceremony of blessing the candles, given in the Roman Missal, printed at 
Paris, 1677, there is great praise of the Bee, strongly resembling the passage 
quoted in the text. The introduction of such an extraordinary formula into a 
religious ceremony is of very ancient date, and is distinctly traced to an Italian 
source; for, in the words of the Popish Bishop Ennodius, who occupied an Italian 
diocese in the sixth century, we find the counterpart of that under consideration. 
Thus, in a prayer in regard to the "Easter Candle," the reason for offering up the 
wax-candle is expressly declared to be, because that through means of the bees 
that produce the wax of which it is made, "earth has an image of what is 
PECULIAR TO HEAVEN," and that in regard to the very subject of 
GENERATION; the bees being able, "through the virtue of herbs, to pour forth 
their young through their MOUTHS with less waste of time than all other 
creatures do in the ordinary way." This prayer contains the precise idea of the 
prayer in the text; and there is only one way of accounting for the origin of such 
an idea. It must have come from a Chaldean Liturgy. 

Here it is evident that Christ is referred to as the "Word of God"; and how could any imagination 
ever have conceived such a parallel as is contained in this passage, had it not been for the 
equivoque [wordplay, double meaning] between "Dabar," "the Bee," and "Dabar," "The Word." 
In a Popish work already quoted, the Pancarpium Marianum, I find the Lord Jesus expressly 
called by the name of the Bee. Referring to Mary, under the title of "The Paradise of Delight," 
the author thus speaks: "In this Paradise that celestial Bee, that is, the incarnate Wisdom, did 
feed. Here it found that dropping honeycomb, with which the whole bitterness of the corrupted 
world has been turned into sweetness." This blasphemously represents the Lord Jesus as having 
derived everything necessary to bless the world from His mother! Could this ever have come 
from the Bible? No. It must have come only from the source where the writer learned to call "the 
incarnate Wisdom" by the name of the Bee. Now, as the equivoque from which such a name 
applied to the Lord Jesus springs, is founded only on the Babylonian tongue, it shows whence his 
theology has come, and it proves also to demonstration that this whole prayer about the blessing 
of wax-candles must have been drawn from a Babylonian prayer-book. Surely, at every step, the 
reader must see more and more the exactitude of the Divine name given to the woman on the 
seven mountains, "Mystery, Babylon the Great" ! 


Section VI 
The Sign of the Cross 


1*1. e, * 5. 

Fig. 43: The Cruciform T or Tau of Ancient Nations 

No. 1: From KITTO's Biblical Cyclopaedia, vol. i. p. 495. 
No. 2: From Sir W. BETHAN's Etruria, vol. i. p. 54. 
No. 3: From BUNSEN, vol. i. p. 450. 
Nos. 4 & 5: From STEPHEN'S Central America, vol. ii. p. 
344, Plate 2. 

There is yet one more symbol of the Romish worship to be noticed, and that is the sign of the 
cross. In the Papal system as is well known, the sign of the cross and the image of the cross are 
all in all. No prayer can be said, no worship engaged in, no step almost can be taken, without the 
frequent use of the sign of the cross. The cross is looked upon as the grand charm, as the great 
refuge in every season of danger, in every hour of temptation as the infallible preservative from 
all the powers of darkness. The cross is adored with all the homage due only to the Most High; 
and for any one to call it, in the hearing of a genuine Romanist, by the Scriptural term, "the 
accursed tree," is a mortal offence. To say that such superstitious feeling for the sign of the cross, 
such worship as Rome pays to a wooden or a metal cross, ever grew out of the saying of Paul, 
"God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"--that is, in the 
doctrine of Christ crucified--is a mere absurdity, a shallow subterfuge and pretence. The magic 
virtues attributed to the so-called sign of the cross, the worship bestowed on it, never came from 
such a source. The same sign of the cross that Rome now worships was used in the Babylonian 
Mysteries, was applied by Paganism to the same magic purposes, was honoured with the same 
honours. That which is now called the Christian cross was originally no Christian emblem at all, 
but was the mystic Tau of the Chaldeans and Egyptians --the true original form of the letter T— 
the initial of the name of Tammuz-- which, in Hebrew, radically the same as ancient Chaldee, as 
found on coins, was formed as in No. 1 of the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 43 ); and in Etrurian 
and Coptic, as in Nos. 2 and 3. That mystic Tau was marked in baptism on the foreheads of 
those initiated in the Mysteries, * and was used in every variety of way as a most sacred symbol. 

* TERTULLIAN, De Proescript. Hoeret. The language of Tertullian implies that 
those who were initiated by baptism in the Mysteries were marked on the 
forehead in the same way, as his Christian countrymen in Africa, who had begun 
by this time to be marked in baptism with the sign of the cross. 


Fig. 44: Ancient Pagans adorned with Crosses 
WILKINSON, vol. i. p. 376. 

To identify Tammuz with the sun it was joined sometimes to the circle of the sun, as in No. 4 ; 
sometimes it was inserted in the circle, as in No. 5 . Whether the Maltese cross, which the 
Romish bishops append to their names as a symbol of their episcopal dignity, is the letter T, may 
be doubtful; but there seems no reason to doubt that that Maltese cross is an express symbol of 
the sun; for Layard found it as a sacred symbol in Nineveh in such a connection as led him to 
identify it with the sun. The mystic Tau, as the symbol of the great divinity, was called "the sign 
of life"; it was used as an amulet over the heart; it was marked on the official garments of the 
priests, as on the official garments of the priests of Rome; it was borne by kings in their hand, as 
a token of their dignity or divinely- conferred authority. The Vestal virgins of Pagan Rome wore 
it suspended from their necklaces, as the nuns do now. The Egyptians did the same, and many of 
the barbarous nations with whom they had intercourse, as the Egyptian monuments bear witness. 
In reference to the adorning of some of these tribes, Wilkinson thus writes: "The girdle was 
sometimes highly ornamented; men as well as women wore earrings; and they frequently had a 
small cross suspended to a necklace, or to the collar of their dress. The adoption of this last was 
not peculiar to them; it was also appended to, or figured upon, the robes of the Rot- n- no; and 
traces of it may be seen in the fancy ornaments of the Rebo, showing that it was already in use as 
early as the fifteenth century before the Christian era." ( Fig. 44 ). There is hardly a Pagan tribe 
where the cross has not been found. The cross was worshipped by the Pagan Celts long before 
the incarnation and death of Christ. "It is a fact," says Maurice, "not less remarkable than well- 
attested, that the Druids in their groves were accustomed to select the most stately and beautiful 
tree as an emblem of the Deity they adored, and having cut the side branches, they affixed two of 
the largest of them to the highest part of the trunk, in such a manner that those branches extended 
on each side like the arms of a man, and, together with the body, presented the appearance of a 
HUGE CROSS, and on the bark, in several places, was also inscribed the letter Thau." It was 
worshipped in Mexico for ages before the Roman Catholic missionaries set foot there, large 
stone crosses being erected, probably to the "god of rain." The cross thus widely worshipped, or 
regarded as a sacred emblem, was the unequivocal symbol of Bacchus, the Babylonian Messiah, 
for he was represented with a head-band covered with crosses (See Fig. 45 ). This symbol of the 
Babylonian god is reverenced at this day in all the wide wastes of Tartary, where Buddhism 


prevails, and the way in which it is represented among them forms a striking commentary on the 
language applied by Rome to the Cross. "The cross," says Colonel Wilford, in the Asiatic 
Researches, "though not an object of worship among the Baud'has or Buddhists, is a favourite 
emblem and device among them. It is exactly the cross of the Manicheans, with leaves and 
flowers springing from it. This cross, putting forth leaves and flowers (and fruit also, as I am 
told), is called the divine tree, the tree of the gods, the tree of life and knowledge, and productive 
of whatever is good and desirable, and is placed in the terrestrial paradise." ( Fig. 46) . Compare 
this with the language of Rome applied to the cross, and it will be seen how exact is the 
coincidence. In the Office of the Cross, it is called the "Tree of life," and the worshippers are 
taught thus to address it: "Hail, O Cross, triumphal wood, true salvation of the world, among 
trees there is none like thee in leaf, flower, and bud...O Cross, our only hope, increase 
righteousness to the godly and pardon the offences of the guilty." * 

Fig. 45: Bacchus, with Head-Band covered with Crosses 

The above figure is the head of that which is given in Fig. 22 . only magnified, 
that the crosses may be more distinctly visible. Let the reader turn back from 
this point, and read over again what is said about the worship at Rome on Good 
Friday of the "cross of fire." and the full significance of that worship will now 

* The above was actually versified by the Romanisers in the Church of England, 
and published along with much besides from the same source, some years ago, in 
a volume entitled Devotions on the Passion. The London Record, of April, 1842, 
gave the following as a specimen of the "Devotions" provided by these "wolves in 
sheep's clothing" for members of the Church of England:- - 

"O faithful cross, thou peerless tree, 

No forest yields the like of thee, 

Leaf, flower, and bud; 

Sweet is the wood, and sweet the weight, 

And sweet the nails that penetrate 

Thee, thou sweet wood." 


Fig. 46: Various Examples of Pagan Crosses 

The two at the top are Standards of Pagan barbarous nations of the East, from 
BRYANT's Mythology, vol. iii. p. 327. The black one in the middle, "The 
sacred Egyptian Tau or Sign of Life," from WILKINSON, vol. v. p. 283. The 
two lowest are Buddhist Crosses, from Asiatic Researches, vol. x. p. 124. 

Can any one, reading the gospel narrative of the crucifixion, possibly believe that that narrative 
of itself could ever germinate into such extravagance of "leaf, flower, and bud," as thus appears 
in this Roman Office? But when it is considered that the Buddhist, like the Babylonian cross, 
was the recognised emblem of Tammuz, who was known as the mistletoe branch, or "All-heal," 
then it is easy to see how the sacred Initial should be represented as covered with leaves, and 
how Rome, in adopting it, should call it the "Medicine which preserves the healthful, heals the 
sick, and does what mere human power alone could never do." 

Now, this Pagan symbol seems first to have crept into the Christian Church in Egypt, and 
generally into Africa. A statement of Tertullian, about the middle of the third century, shows 
how much, by that time, the Church of Carthage was infected with the old leaven. Egypt 
especially, which was never thoroughly evangelised, appears to have taken the lead in bringing 
in this Pagan symbol. The first form of that which is called the Christian Cross, found on 
Christian monuments there, is the unequivocal Pagan Tau, or Egyptian "Sign of life." Let the 
reader peruse the following statement of Sir G. Wilkinson: "A still more curious fact may be 
mentioned respecting this hieroglyphic al character [the Tau], that the early Christians of Egypt 
adopted it in lieu of the cross, which was afterwards substituted for it, prefixing it to inscriptions 
in the same manner as the cross in later times. For, though Dr. Young had some scruples in 
believing the statement of Sir A. Edmonstone, that it holds that position in the sepulchres of the 
great Oasis, I can attest that such is the case, and that numerous inscriptions, headed by the Tau, 
are preserved to the present day on early Christian monuments." The drift of this statement is 
evidently this, that in Egypt the earliest form of that which has since been called the cross, was 
no other than the "Crux Ansata," or "Sign of life," borne by Osiris and all the Egyptian gods; that 
the ansa or "handle" was afterwards dispensed with, and that it became the simple Tau, or 
ordinary cross, as it appears at this day, and that the design of its first employment on the 
sepulchres, therefore, could have no reference to the crucifixion of the Nazarene, but was simply 
the result of the attachment to old and long- cherished Pagan symbols, which is always strong in 


those who, with the adoption of the Christian name and profession, are still, to a large extent, 
Pagan in heart and feeling. This, and this only, is the origin of the worship of the "cross." 

This, no doubt, will appear all very strange and very incredible to those who have read Church 
history, as most have done to a large extent, even amongst Protestants, through Romish 
spectacles; and especially to those who call to mind the famous story told of the miraculous 
appearance of the cross to Constantine on the day before the decisive victory at the Milvian 
bridge, that decided the fortunes of avowed Paganism and nominal Christianity. That story, as 
commonly told, if true, would certainly give a Divine sanction to the reverence for the cross. But 
that story, when sifted to the bottom, according to the common version of it, will be found to be 
based on a delusion- -a delusion, however, into which so good a man as Milner has allowed 
himself to fall. Milner's account is as follows: "Constantine, marching from France into Italy 
against Maxentius, in an expedition which was likely either to exalt or to ruin him, was 
oppressed with anxiety. Some god he thought needful to protect him; the God of the Christians 
he was most inclined to respect, but he wanted some satisfactory proof of His real existence and 
power, and he neither understood the means of acquiring this, nor could he be content with the 
atheistic indifference in which so many generals and heroes since his time have acquiesced. He 
prayed, he implored with such vehemence and importunity, and God left him not unanswered. 
While he was marching with his forces in the afternoon, the trophy of the cross appeared very 
luminous in the heavens, brighter than the sun, with this inscription, 'Conquer by this.' He and his 
soldiers were astonished at the sight; but he continued pondering on the event till night. And 
Christ appeared to him when asleep with the same sign of the cross, and directed him to make 
use of the symbol as his military ensign." Such is the statement of Milner. Now, in regard to the 
"trophy of the cross," a few words will suffice to show that it is utterly unfounded. I do not think 
it necessary to dispute the fact of some miraculous sign having been given. There may, or there 
may not, have been on this occasion a "dignus vindice nodus," a crisis worthy of a Divine 
interposition. Whether, however, there was anything out of the ordinary course, I do not inquire. 
But this I say, on the supposition that Constantine in this matter acted in good faith, and that 
there actually was a miraculous appearance in the heavens, that it as not the sign of the cross that 
was seen, but quite a different thing, the name of Christ. That this was the case, we have at once 
the testimony of Lactantius, who was the tutor of Constantine's son Crispus--the earliest author 
who gives any account of the matter, and the indisputable evidence of the standards of 
Constantine themselves, as handed down to us on medals struck at the time. The testimony of 
Lactantius is most decisive: "Constantine was warned in a dream to make the celestial sign of 
God upon his solders' shields, and so to join battle. He did as he was bid, and with the transverse 
letter X circumflecting the head of it, he marks Christ on their shields. Equipped with this sign, 
his army takes the sword." Now, the letter X was just the initial of the name of Christ, being 
equivalent in Greek to CH. If, therefore, Constantine did as he was bid, when he made "the 
celestial sign of God" in the form of "the letter X," it was that "letter X," as the symbol of 
"Christ" and not the sign of the cross, which he saw in the heavens. When the Labarum, or far- 
famed standard of Constantine itself, properly so called, was made, we have the evidence of 
Ambrose, the well-known Bishop of Milan, that that standard was formed on the very principle 
contained in the statement of Lactantius --viz., simply to display the Redeemer's name. He calls it 
"Labarum, hoc est Christi sacratum nomine signum."--"The Labarum, that is, the ensign 
consecrated by the NAME of Christ." * 

* Epistle of Ambrose to the Emperor Theodosius about the proposal to restore the 
Pagan altar of Victory in the Roman Senate. The subject of the Labarum has been 


much confused through ignorance of the meaning of the word. Bryant assumes 
(and I was myself formerly led away by the assumption) that it was applied to the 
standard bearing the crescent and the cross, but he produces no evidence for the 
assumption; and I am now satisfied that none can be produced. The name 
Labarum, which is generally believed to have come from the East, treated as an 
Oriental word, gives forth its meaning at once. It evidently comes from Lab, "to 
vibrate," or "move to and fro," and ar "to be active." Interpreted thus, Labarum 
signifies simply a banner or flag, "waving to and fro" in the wind, and this 
entirely agrees with the language of Ambrose "an ensign consecrated by the name 
of Christ," which implies a banner. 

There is not the slightest allusion to any cross--to anything but the simple name of Christ. While 
we have these testimonies of Lactantius and Ambrose, when we come to examine the standard of 
Constantine, we find the accounts of both authors fully borne out; we find that that standard, 
bearing on it these very words, "Hoc signo victor eris," "In this sign thou shalt be a conqueror," 
said to have been addressed from heaven to the emperor, has nothing at all in the shape of a 
cross, but "the letter X." In the Roman Catacombs, on a Christian monument to "Sinphonia and 
her sons," there is a distinct allusion to the story of the vision; but that allusion also shows that 
the X, and not the cross, was regarded as the "heavenly sign." The words at the head of the 
inscription are these: "In Hoc Vinces [In this thou shalt overcome] X." Nothing whatever but the 
X is here given as the "Victorious Sign." There are some examples, no doubt, of Constantine's 
standard, in which there is a cross-^ar, from which the flag is suspended, that contains that 
"letter X"; and Eusebius, who wrote when superstition and apostacy were working, tries hard to 
make it appear that that cross-bar was the essential element in the ensign of Constantine. But this 
is obviously a mistake; that cross-bar was nothing new, nothing peculiar to Constantine's 
standard. Tertullian shows that that cross-bar was found long before on the vexillum, the Roman 
Pagan standard, that carried a flag; and it was used simply for the purpose of displaying that flag. 
If, therefore, that cross-bar was the "celestial sign," it needed no voice from heaven to direct 
Constantine to make it; nor would the making or displaying of it have excited any particular 
attention on the part of those who saw it. We find no evidence at all that the famous legend, "In 
this overcome," has any reference to this cross-bar; but we find evidence the most decisive that 
that legend does refer to the X. Now, that that X was not intended as the sign of the cross, but as 
the initial of Christ's name, is manifest from this, that the Greek P, equivalent to our R, is 
inserted in the middle of it, making by their union CHR. The standard of Constantine, then, was 
just the name of Christ. Whether the device came from earth or from heaven- -whether it was 
suggested by human wisdom or Divine, supposing that Constantine was sincere in his Christian 
profession, nothing more was implied in it than a literal embodiment of the sentiment of the 
Psalmist, "In the name of the Lord will we display our banners." To display that name on the 
standards of Imperial Rome was a thing absolutely new; and the sight of that name, there can be 
little doubt, nerved the Christian soldiers in Constantine's army with more than usual fire to fight 
and conquer at the Milvian bridge. 

In the above remarks I have gone on the supposition that Constantine acted in good faith as a 
Christian. His good faith, however, has been questioned; and I am not without my suspicions that 
the X may have been intended to have one meaning to the Christians and another to the Pagans. 
It is certain that the X was the symbol of the god Ham in Egypt, and as such was exhibited on the 
breast of his image. Whichever view be taken, however, of Constantine's sincerity, the supposed 
Divine warrant for reverencing the sign of the cross entirely falls to the ground. In regard to the 


X, there is no doubt that, by the Christians who knew nothing of secret plots or devices, it was 
generally taken, as Lactantius declares, as equivalent to the name of "Christ." In this view, 
therefore, it had no very great attractions for the Pagans, who, even in worshipping Horus, had 
always been accustomed to make use of the mystic tau or cross, as the "sign of life," or the 
magical charm that secured all that was good, and warded off everything that was evil. When, 
therefore, multitudes of the Pagans, on the conversion of Constantine, flocked into the Church, 
like the semi- Pagans of Egypt, they brought along with them their predilection for the old 
symbol. The consequence was, that in no great length of time, as apostacy proceeded, the X 
which in itself was not an unnatural symbol of Christ, the true Messiah, and which had once been 
regarded as such, was allowed to go entirely into disuse, and the Tau, the sign of the cross, the 
indisputable sign of Tammuz, the false Messiah, was everywhere substituted in its stead. Thus, 
by the "sign of the cross," Christ has been crucified anew by those who profess to be His 
disciples. Now, if these things be matter of historic fact, who can wonder that, in the Romish 
Church, "the sign of the cross" has always and everywhere been seen to be such an instrument of 
rank superstition and delusion? 

There is more, much more, in the rites and ceremonies of Rome that might be brought to 
elucidate our subject. But the above may suffice. * 

* If the above remarks be well founded, surely it cannot be right that this sign of 
the cross, or emblem of Tammuz, should be used in Christian baptism. At the 
period of the Revolution, a Royal Commission, appointed to inquire into the Rites 
and Ceremonies of the Church of England, numbering among its members eight 
or ten bishops, strongly recommended that the use of the cross, as tending to 
superstition, should be laid aside. If such a recommendation was given then, and 
that by such authority as members of the Church of England must respect, how 
much ought that recommendation to be enforced by the new light which 
Providence has cast on the subject! 

Chapter VI 
Religious Orders 

Section I 
The Sovereign Pontiff 

The gift of the ministry is one of the greatest gifts which Christ has bestowed upon the world. It 
is in reference to this that the Psalmist, predicting the ascension of Christ, thus loftily speaks of 
its blessed results: "Thou hast ascended up on high: Thou hast led captivity captive; Thou hast 
received gifts for men, even for the rebellious, that the Lord God might dwell among them" (Eph 
4:8-11). The Church of Rome, at its first planting, had the divinely bestowed gift of a Scriptural 
ministry and government; and then "its faith was spoken of throughout the whole world"; its 
works of righteousness were both rich and abundant. But, in an evil hour, the Babylonian 
element was admitted into its ministry, and thenceforth, that which had been intended as a 
blessing, was converted into a curse. Since then, instead of sanctifying men, it has only been the 
means of demoralising them, and making them "twofold more the children of hell" than they 
would have been had they been left simply to themselves. 


If there be any who imagine that there is some occult and mysterious virtue in an apostolic 
succession that comes through the Papacy, let them seriously consider the real character of the 
Pope's own orders, and of those of his bishops and clergy. From the Pope downwards, all can be 
shown to be now radically Babylonian. The College of Cardinals, with the Pope at its head, is 
just the counterpart of the Pagan College of Pontiffs, with its "Pontifex Maximus," or "Sovereign 
Pontiff," which had existed in Rome from the earliest times, and which is known to have been 
framed on the model of the grand original Council of Pontiffs at Babylon. The Pope now 
pretends to supremacy in the Church as the successor of Peter, to whom it is alleged that our 
Lord exclusively committed the keys of the kingdom of heaven. But here is the important fact 
that, till the Pope was invested with the title, which for a thousand years had had attached to it 
the power of the keys of Janus and Cybele, * no such claim to pre-eminence, or anything 
approaching to it, was ever publicly made on his part, on the ground of his being the possessor of 
the keys bestowed on Peter. 

* It was only in the second century before the Christian era that the worship of 
Cybele, under that name, was introduced into Rome; but the same goddess, under 
the name of Cardea, with the 'power of the key" was worshipped in Rome, along 
with Janus, ages before. OVID's Fasti 

Very early, indeed, did the bishop of Rome show a proud and ambitious spirit; but, for the first 
three centuries, their claim for superior honour was founded simply on the dignity of their see, as 
being that of the imperial city, the capital of the Roman world. When, however, the seat of 
empire was removed to the East, and Constantinople threatened to eclipse Rome, some new 
ground for maintaining the dignity of the Bishop of Rome must be sought. That new ground was 
found, when, about 378, the Pope fell heir to the keys that were the symbols of two well-known 
Pagan divinities at Rome. Janus bore a key, and Cybele bore a key; and these are the two keys 
that the Pope emblazons on his arms as the ensigns of his spiritual authority. How the Pope came 
to be regarded as wielding the power of these keys will appear in the sequel; but that he did, in 
the popular apprehension, become entitled to that power at the period referred to is certain. Now, 
when he had come, in the estimation of the Pagans, to occupy the place of the representatives of 
Janus and Cybele, and therefore to be entitled to bear their keys, the Pope saw that if he could 
only get it believed among the Christians that Peter alone had the power of the keys, and that he 
was Peter's successor, then the sight of these keys would keep up the delusion, and thus, though 
the temporal dignity of Rome as a city should decay, his own dignity as the Bishop of Rome 
would be more firmly established than ever. On this policy it is evident he acted. Some time was 
allowed to pass away, and then, when the secret working of the Mystery of iniquity had prepared 
the way for it, for the first time did the Pope publicly assert his pre-eminence, as founded on the 
keys given to Peter. About 378 was he raised to the position which gave him, in Pagan 
estimation, the power of the keys referred to. In 432, and not before, did he publicly lay claim to 
the possession of Peter's keys. This, surely, is a striking coincidence. Does the reader ask how it 
was possible that men could give credit to such a baseless assumption? The words of Scripture, 
in regard to this very subject, give a very solemn but satisfactory answer (2 Thess 2:10,11): 
"Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved... For this cause God 
shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." Few lies could be more gross; 
but, in course of time, it came to be widely believed; and now, as the statue of Jupiter is 
worshipped at Rome as the veritable image of Peter, so the keys of Janus and Cybele have for 
ages been devoutly believed to represent the keys of the same apostle. 


While nothing but judicial infatuation can account for the credulity of the Christians in regarding 
these keys as emblems of an exclusive power given by Christ to the Pope through Peter, it is not 
difficult to see how the Pagans would rally round the Pope all the more readily when they heard 
him found his power on the possession of Peter's keys. The keys that the Pope bore were the 
keys of a "Peter" well known to the Pagans initiated in the Chaldean Mysteries. That Peter the 
apostle was ever Bishop of Rome has been proved again and again to be an arrant fable. That he 
ever even set foot in Rome is at the best highly doubtful. His visit to that city rests on no better 
authority than that of a writer at the end of the second century or beginning of the third--viz., the 
author of the work called The Clementines, who gravely tells us that on the occasion of his visit, 
finding Simon Magus there, the apostle challenged him to give proof of his miraculous or 
magical powers, whereupon the sorcerer flew up into the air, and Peter brought him down in 
such hast that his leg was broken. All historians of repute have at once rejected this story of the 
apostolic encounter with the magician as being destitute of all contemporary evidence; but as the 
visit of Peter to Rome rests on the same authority, it must stand or fall along with it, or, at least, 
it must be admitted to be extremely doubtful. But, while this is the case with Peter the Christian, 
it can be shown to be by no means doubtful that before the Christian era, and downwards, there 
was a "Peter" at Rome, who occupied the highest place in the Pagan priesthood. The priest who 
explained the Mysteries to the initiated was sometimes called by a Greek term, the Hierophant; 
but in primitive Chaldee, the real language of the Mysteries, his title, as pronounced without the 
points, was "Peter"-- i.e., "the interpreter." As the revealer of that which was hidden, nothing was 
more natural than that, while opening up the esoteric doctrine of the Mysteries, he should be 
decorated with the keys of the two divinities whose mysteries he unfolded. * 

* The Turkish Mufties, or "interpreters" of the Koran, derive that name from the 
very same verb as that from which comes Miftah, a key. 

Thus we may see how the keys of Janus and Cybele would come to be known as the keys of 
Peter, the "interpreter" of the Mysteries. Yea, we have the strongest evidence that, in countries 
far removed from one another, and far distant from Rome, these keys were known by initiated 
Pagans not merely as the "keys of Peter," but as the keys of a Peter identified with Rome. In the 
Eleusinian Mysteries at Athens, when the candidates for initiation were instructed in the secret 
doctrine of Paganism, the explanation of that doctrine was read to them out of a book called by 
ordinary writers the "Book Petroma"; that is, as we are told, a book formed of stone. But this is 
evidently just a play upon words, according to the usual spirit of Paganism, intended to amuse 
the vulgar. The nature of the case, and the history of the Mysteries, alike show that this book 
could be none other than the "Book Pet- Roma"; that is, the "Book of the Grand Interpreter," in 
other words, of Hermes Trismegistus, the great "Interpreter of the Gods." In Egypt, from which 
Athens derived its religion, the books of Hermes were regarded as the divine fountain of all true 
knowledge of the Mysteries. * In Egypt, therefore, Hermes was looked up to in this very 
character of Grand Interpreter, or "Peter- Roma." ** In Athens, Hermes, as its well known, 
occupied precisely the same place, *** and, of course, in the sacred language, must have been 
known by the same title. 

* The following are the authorities for the statement in the text: "Jamblichus says 
that Hermes [i.e., the Egyptian] was the god of all celestial knowledge, which, 
being communicated by him to his priests, authorised them to inscribe their 
commentaries with the name of Hermes" (WILKINSON). Again, according to the 
fabulous accounts of the Egyptian Mercury, he was reported... to have taught men 


the proper mode of approaching the Deity with prayers and sacrifice 
(WILKINSON). Hermes Trismegistus seems to have been regarded as a new 
incarnation of Thoth, and possessed of higher honours. The principal books of this 
Hermes, according to Clemens of Alexandria, were treated by the Egyptians with 
the most profound respect, and carried in their religious processions (CLEM., 
ALEX., Strom.). 

** In Egypt, "Petr" was used in this very sense. See BUNSEN, Hieroglyph, where 
Ptr is said to signify "to show." The interpreter was called Hierophantes, which 
has the very idea of "showing" in it. 

*** The Athenian or Grecian Hermes is celebrated as "The source of 
invention... He bestows, too, mathesis on souls, by unfolding the will of the father 
of Jupiter, and this he accomplishes as the angel or messenger of Jupiter... He is 
the guardian of disciplines, because the invention of geometry, reasoning, and 
language is referred to this god. He presides, therefore, over every species of 
erudition, leading us to an intelligible essence from this mortal abode, governing 
the different herds of souls" (PROCLUS in Commentary on First Alcibiades, 
TAYLOR'S Orphic Hymns). The Grecian Hermes was so essentially the revealer 
or interpreter of divine things, that Hermeneutes, an interpreter, was currently said 
to come from his name (HYGINUS). 

The priest, therefore, that in the name of Hermes explained the Mysteries, must have been 
decked not only with the keys of Peter, but with the keys of "Peter-Roma." Here, then, the 
famous "Book of Stone" begins to appear in a new light, and not only so, but to shed new light 
on one of the darkest and most puzzling passages of Papal history. It has always been a matter of 
amazement to candid historical inquirers how it could ever have come to pass that the name of 
Peter should be associated with Rome in the way in which it is found from the fourth century 
downwards --how so many in different countries had been led to believe that Peter, who was an 
"apostle of the circumcision," had apostatised from his Divine commission, and become bishop 
of a Gentile Church, and that he should be the spiritual ruler in Rome, when no satisfactory 
evidence could be found for his ever having been in Rome at all. But the book of "Peter-Roma" 
accounts for what otherwise is entirely inexplicable. The existence of such a title was too 
valuable to be overlooked by the Papacy; and, according to its usual policy, it was sure, if it had 
the opportunity, to turn it to the account of its own aggrandisement. And that opportunity it had. 
When the Pope came, as he did, into intimate connection with the Pagan priesthood; when they 
came at last, as we shall see they did, under his control, what more natural than to seek not only 
to reconcile Paganism and Christianity, but to make it appear that the Pagan "Peter- Roma," with 
his keys, meant "Peter of Rome," and that that "Peter of Rome" was the very apostle to whom the 
Lord Jesus Christ gave the "keys of the kingdom of heaven"? Hence, from the mere jingle of 
words, persons and things essentially different were confounded; and Paganism and Christianity 
jumbled together, that the towering ambition of a wicked priest might be gratified; and so, to the 
blinded Christians of the apostacy, the Pope was the representative of Peter the apostle, while to 
the initiated pagans, he was only the representative of Peter, the interpreter of their well known 
Mysteries. Thus was the Pope the express counterpart of "Janus, the double-faced." Oh! what an 
emphasis of meaning in the Scriptural expression, as applied to the Papacy, "The Mystery of 


The reader will now be prepared to understand how it is that the Pope's Grand Council of State, 
which assists him in the government of the Church, comes to be called the College of Cardinals. 
The term Cardinal is derived from Cardo, a hinge. Janus, whose key the Pope bears, was the god 
of doors and hinges, and was called Patulcius, and Clusius "the opener and the shutter." This had 
a blasphemous meaning, for he was worshipped at Rome as the grand mediator. Whatever 
important business was in hand, whatever deity was to be invoked, an invocation first of all must 
be addressed to Janus, who was recognised as the "God of gods," in whose mysterious divinity 
the characters of father and son were combined, and without that no prayer could be heard- -the 
"door of heaven" could not be opened. It was this same god whose worship prevailed so 
exceedingly in Asia Minor at the time when our Lord sent, by his servant John, the seven 
Apocalyptic messages to the churches established in that region. And, therefore, in one of these 
messages we find Him tacitly rebuking the profane ascription of His own peculiar dignity to that 
divinity, and asserting His exclusive claim to the prerogative usually attributed to His rival. 
Thus, Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he 
that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; 
and shutteth, and no man openeth." Now, to this Janus, as Mediator, worshipped in Asia Minor, 
and equally, from very early times, in Rome, belonged the government of the world; and, "all 
power in heaven, in earth, and the sea," according to Pagan ideas, was vested in him. In this 
character he was said to have "jus vertendi cardinis"--the "power of turning the hinge"--of 
opening the doors of heaven, or of opening or shutting the gates of peace or war upon earth. The 
Pope, therefore, when he set up as the High-priest of Janus, assumed also the "jus vertendi 
cardinis" "the power of turning the hinge,"--of opening and shutting in the blasphemous Pagan 
sense. Slowly and cautiously at first was this power asserted; but the foundation being laid, 
steadily, century after century, was the grand superstructure of priestly power erected upon it. 
The Pagans, who saw what strides, under Papal directions, Christianity, as professed in Rome, 
was making towards Paganism, were more than content to recognise the Pope as possessing this 
power; they gladly encouraged him to rise, step by step, to the full height of the blasphemous 
pretensions befitting the representative of Janus--pretensions which, as all men know, are now, 
by the unanimous consent of Western Apostate Christendom, recognised as inherent in the office 
of the Bishop of Rome. To enable the Pope, however, to rise to the full plenitude of power which 
he now asserts, the co-operation of others was needed. When his power increased, when his 
dominion extended, and especially after he became a temporal sovereign, the key of Janus 
became too heavy for his single hand --he needed some to share with him the power of the 
"hinge." Hence his privy councillors, his high functionaries of state, who were associated with 
him in the government of the Church and the world, got the now well known title of "Cardinals"- 
-the priests of the "hinge." This title had been previously borne by the high officials of the 
Roman Emperor, who, as "Pontifex Maximus," had been himself the representative of Janus, and 
who delegated his powers to servants of his own. Even in the reign of Theodosius, the Christian 
Emperor of Rome, the title of Cardinal was borne by his Prime Minister. But now both the name 
and the power implied in the name have long since disappeared from all civil functionaries of 
temporal sovereigns; and those only who aid the Pope in wielding the key of Janus--in opening 
and shutting--are known by the title of Cardinals, or priests of the 'hinge." 

I have said that the Pope became the representative of Janus, who, it is evident, was none other 
than the Babylonian Messiah. If the reader only considers the blasphemous assumptions of the 
Papacy, he will see how exactly it has copied from its original. In the countries where the 
Babylonian system was most thoroughly developed, we find the Sovereign Pontiff of the 


Babylonian god invested with the very attributes now ascribed to the Pope. Is the Pope called 
"God upon earth" the "Vice-God," and "Vicar of Jesus Christ"? The King in Egypt, who was 
Sovereign Pontiff, * was, says Wilkinson, regarded with the highest reverence as "THE 

* Wilkinson shows that the king had the right of enacting laws, and of managing 
all the affairs of religion and the State, which proves him to have been Sovereign 

Is the Pope "Infallible," and does the Church of Rome, in consequence, boast that it has always 
been "unchanged and unchangeable"? The same was the case with the Chaldean Pontiff, and the 
system over which he presided. The Sovereign Pontiff, says the writer just quoted, was believed 
to be "INCAPABLE OF ERROR," * and, in consequence, there was "the greatest respect for the 
sanctity of old edicts"; and hence, no doubt, also the origin of the custom that "the laws of the 
Medes and Persians could not be altered." Does the Pope receive the adorations of the Cardinals? 
The king of Babylon, as Sovereign Pontiff, was adored in like manner. ** 

* WILKINSON'S Egyptians. "The Infallibility" was a natural result of the popular 
belief in regard to the relation in which the Sovereign stood to the gods: for, says 
Diodoms Siculus, speaking of Egypt, the king was believed to be "a partaker of 
the divine nature." 

** From the statement of LA YARD (Nineveh and its Remains and Nineveh and 
Babylon), it appears that as the king of Egypt was the "Head of the religion and 
the state," so was the king of Assyria, which included Babylon. Then we have 
evidence that he was worshipped. The sacred images are represented as adoring 
him, which could not have been the case if his own subjects did not pay their 
homage in that way. Then the adoration claimed by Alexander the Great evidently 
came from this source. It was directly in imitation of the adoration paid to the 
Persian kings that he required such homage. From Xenophon we have evidence 
that this Persian custom came from Babylon. It was when Cyrus had entered 
Babylon that the Persians, for the first time, testified their homage to him by 
adoration; for, "before this," says Xenophon (Cyropoed), "none of the Persians 
had given adoration to Cyrus." 

Are kings and ambassadors required to kiss the Pope's slipper! This, too, is copied from the 
same pattern; for, says Professor Gaussen, quoting Strabo and Herodotus, "the kings of Chaldea 
wore on their feet slippers which the kings they conquered used to kiss." In kind, is the Pope 
addressed by the title of "Your Holiness"? So also was the Pagan Pontiff of Rome. The title 
seems to have been common to all Pontiffs. Symmachus, the last Pagan representative of the 
Roman Emperor, as Sovereign Pontiff, addressing one of his colleagues or fellow- pontiffs, on a 
step of promotion he was about to obtain, says, "I hear that YOUR HOLINESS (sanctitatem 
tuam) is to be called out by the sacred letters." 

Peter's keys have now been restored to their rightful owner. Peter's chair must also go along with 
them. That far-famed chair came from the very same quarter as the cross-keys. The very same 
reason that led the Pope to assume the Chaldean keys naturally led him also to take possession of 
the vacant chair of the Pagan Pontifex Maximus. As the Pontifex, by virtue of his office, had 
been the Hierophant, or Interpreter of the Mysteries, his chair of office was as well entitled to be 
called "Peter's" chair as the Pagan keys to be called "the keys of Peter"; and so it was called 


accordingly. The real pedigree of the far-famed chair of Peter will appear from the following 
fact: "The Romans had," says Bower, "as they thought, till the year 1662, a pregnant proof, not 
only of Peter's erecting their chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for, till that year, the very chair 
on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shown and exposed to 
public adoration on the 18th of January, the festival of the said chair. But while it was cleaning, 
in order to set it up in some conspicuous place of the Vatican, the twelve labours of Hercules 
unluckily appeared on it!" and so it had to be laid aside. The partisans of the Papacy were not a 
little disconcerted by this discovery; but they tried to put the best face on the matter they could. 
"Our worship," said Giacomo Bartolini, in his Sacred Antiquities of Rome, while relating the 
circumstances of the discovery, "Our worship, however, was not misplaced, since it was not to 
the wood we paid it, but to the prince of the apostles, St. Peter," that had been supposed to sit in 
it. Whatever the reader may think of this apology for chair- worship, he will surely at least 
perceive, taking this in connection with what we have already seen, that the hoary fable of Peter's 
chair is fairly exploded. In modern times, Rome seems to have been rather unfortunate in regard 
to Peter's chair; for, even after that which bore the twelve labours of Hercules had been 
condemned and cast aside, as unfit to bear the light that the Reformation had poured upon the 
darkness of the Holy See, that which was chosen to replace it was destined to reveal still more 
ludicrously the barefaced impostures of the Papacy. The former chair was borrowed from the 
Pagans; the next appears to have been purloined from the Mussulmans; for when the French 
soldiers under General Bonaparte took possession of Rome in 1795, they found on the back of it, 
in Arabic, this well known sentence of the Koran, "There is no God but God, and Mahomet is 
His Prophet." 

The Pope has not merely a chair to sit in; but he has a chair to be carried in, in pomp and state, 
on men's shoulders, when he pays a visit to St. Peter's, or any of the churches of Rome. Thus 
does an eye-witness describe such a pageant on the Lord's Day, in the headquarters of Papal 
idolatry: "The drums were heard beating without. The guns of the soldiers rung on the stone 
pavement of the house of God, as, at the bidding of their officer, they grounded, shouldered, and 
presented arms. How unlike the Sabbath--how unlike religion--how unlike the suitable 
preparation to receive a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus ! Now, moving slowly up, between 
the two armed lines of soldiers, appeared a long procession of ecclesiastics, bishops, canons, and 
cardinals, preceding the Roman pontiff, who was borne on a gilded chair, clad in vestments 
resplendent as the sun. His bearers were twelve men clad in crimson, being immediately 
preceded by several persons carrying a cross, his mitre, his triple crown, and other insignia of his 
office. As he was borne along on the shoulders of men, amid the gaping crowds, his head was 
shaded or canopied by two immense fens, made of peacocks' feathers, which were borne by two 
attendants." Thus it is with the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome at this day; only that, frequently, over 
and above being shaded by the fan, which is just the "Mystic fan of Bacchus," his chair of state is 
also covered with a regular canopy. Now, look back through the vista of three thousand years, 
and see how the Sovereign Pontiff of Egypt used to pay a visit to the temple of his god. "Having 
reached the precincts of the temple," says Wilkinson, "the guards and royal attendants selected to 
be the representatives of the whole army entered the courts... Military bands played the favourite 
airs of the country; and the numerous standards of the different regiments, the banners floating 
on the wind, the bright lustre of arms, the immense concourse of people, and the imposing 
majesty of the lofty towers of the propylaea, decked with their bright- coloured flags, streaming 
above the cornice, presented a scene seldom, we may say, equalled on any occasion, in any 
country. The most striking feature of this pompous ceremony was the brilliant cortege of the 


monarch, who was either borne in his chair of state by the principal officers of state, under a rich 
canopy, or walked on foot, overshadowed with rich flabella and fans of waving plumes." We 
give, as a woodcut, from Wilkinson (Fig. 47 ), the central portion of one of his plates devoted to 
such an Egyptian procession, that the reader may see with his own eyes how exactly the Pagan 
agrees with the well-known account of the Papal ceremonial. 


Fig. 47: Egyptian Pontiff- King (under a Canopy) borne on Men's Shoulders 
From WILKINSON, vol. vi. Plate 76 

yr&X/ — 

Fig. 48: Assyrian Dagon, with Fish- Head Mitre 

LA YARD'S Babylon and Nineveh, p. 343 

So much for Peter's chair and Peter's keys. Now Janus, whose key the Pope usurped with that of 
his wife or mother Cybele, was also Dagon. Janus, the two-headed god, "who had lived in two 
worlds," was the Babylonian divinity as an incarnation of Noah. Dagon, the fish- god, represented 
that deity as a manifestation of the same patriarch who had lived so long in the waters of the 
deluge. As the Pope bears the key of Janus, so he wears the mitre of Dagon. The excavations of 
Nineveh have put this beyond all possibility of doubt. The Papal mitre is entirely different from 
the mitre of Aaron and the Jewish high priests. That mitre was a turban. The two-horned mitre, 


which the Pope wears, when he sits on the high altar at Rome and receives the adoration of the 
Cardinals, is the very mitre worn by Dagon, the fish-god of the Philistines and Babylonians. 
There were two ways in which Dagon was anciently represented. The one was when he was 
depicted as half- man half- fish; the upper part being entirely human, the under part ending in the 
tail of a fish. The other was, when, to use the words of Layard, "the head of the fish formed a 
mitre above that of the man, while its scaly, fan-like tail fell as a cloak behind, leaving the 
human limbs and feet exposed." Of Dagon in this form Layard gives a representation in his last 
work, which is here represented to the reader (Fig. 48) ; and no one who examines his mitre, and 
compares it with the Pope's as given in Elliot's Howe, can doubt for a moment that from that, 
and no other source, has the pontifical mitre been derived. The gaping jaws of the fish 
surmounting the head of the man at Nineveh are the unmistakable counterpart of the horns of the 
Pope's mitre at Rome. Thus was it in the East, at least five hundred years before the Christian 
era. The same seems to have been the case also in Egypt; for Wilkinson, speaking of a fish of the 
species of Siluris, says "that one of the Genii of the Egyptian Pantheon appears under a human 
form, with the head of this fish." In the West, at a later period, we have evidence that the Pagans 
had detached the fish-head mitre from the body of the fish, and used that mitre alone to adorn the 
head of the great Mediatorial god; for on several Maltese Pagan coins that god, with the well- 
known attributes of Osiris, is represented with nothing of the fish save the mitre on his head (Fig. 
49); very nearly in the same form as the mitre of the Pope, or of a Papal bishop at this day. Even 
in China, the same practice of wearing the fish-head mitre had evidently once prevailed; for the 
very counterpart of the Papal mitre, as worn by the Chinese Emperor, has subsisted to modern 
times. "Is it known," asks a well-read author of the present day, in a private communication to 
me, "that the Emperor of China, in all ages, even to the present year, as high priest of the nation, 
once a year prays for and blesses the whole nation, having his priestly robes on and his mitre on 
his head, the same, the very same, as that worn by the Roman Pontiff for near 1200 years? Such 
is the fact." In proof of this statement the accompanying figure of the Imperial mitre ( Fig. 50 ) is 
produced - which is the very fascimile of the Popish Episcopal Mitre, in a front view. The reader 
must bear in mind, that even in Japan, still farther distant from Babel than China itself, one of the 
divinities is represented with the same symbol of might as prevailed in Assyria--even the bull's 
horns, and is called "The ox-headed Prince of Heaven." If the symbol of Nimrod, as Kronos, 
"The Horned one," is thus found in Japan, it cannot be surprising that the symbol of Dagon 
should be found in China. 

Fig. 49: Maltese God with similar Mitre 
From BRYANT, vol. v. p. 384. 


Fig. 50: The Sacrifical Mitre of Chinese Emperor, as Pontifex Maximus of the Nation 

From HAGER, on Chinese Hieroglyphics, B xxxv. in British Museum, copied for me [Hislop] by 
Mr. Trimen's son, Mr. L. B. Trimen. The words of Hager, are:- "In like manner the sacrificial 
mitre of the Chinese Emperor (the Pontifex Maximus of his nation), which was of old represented 
under this form [and then the above figure is given](- Philos. Transact, at tab. 41-), bearing a 
strong resemblance to the Roman Episcopal Mitre," &c, &c. 

But there is another symbol of the Pope's power which must not be overlooked, and that is the 
pontifical crosier. Whence came the crosier? The answer to this, in the first place, is, that the 
Pope stole it from the Roman augur. The classical reader may remember, that when the Roman 
augurs consulted the heavens, or took prognostics from the aspect of the sky, there was a certain 
instrument with which it was indispensable that they should be equipped. That instrument with 
which they described the portion of the heavens on which their observations were to be made, 
was curved at the one end, and was called "lituus." Now, so manifestly was the "lituus," or 
crooked rod of the Roman augurs, identical with the pontifical crosier, that Roman Catholic 
writers themselves, writing in the Dark Ages, at a time when disguise was thought unnecessary, 
did not hesitate to use the term "lituus" as a synonym for the crosier. Thus a Papal writer 
describes a certain Pope or Papal bishop as "mitra lituoque decorus" adorned with the mitre and 
the augur's rod, meaning thereby that he was "adorned with the mitre and the crosier." But this 
lituus, or divining-rod, of the Roman augurs, was, as is well known, borrowed from the 
Etruscans, who, again, had derived it, along with their religion, from the Assyrians. As the 
Roman augur was distinguished by his crooked rod, so the Chaldean soothsayers and priests, in 
the performance of their magic rites, were generally equipped with a crook or crosier. This magic 
crook can be traced up directly to the first king of Babylon, that is, Nimrod, who, as stated by 
Berosus, was the first that bore the title of a Shepherd- king. In Hebrew, or the Chaldee of the 
days of Abraham, "Nimrod the Shepherd," is just Nimrod "He-Roe"; and from this title of the 
"mighty hunter before the Lord," have no doubt been derived, both the name of Hero itself, and 
all that Hero-worship which has since overspread the world. Certain it is that Nimrod's deified 
successors have generally been represented with the crook or crosier. This was the case in 
Babylon and Nineveh, as the extant monuments show. The accompanying figure ( Fig. 51) from 
Babylon shows the crosier in its ruder guise. In Layard, it may be seen in a more ornate form, 


and nearly resembling the papal crosier as borne at this day. * This was the case in Egypt, after 
the Babylonian power was established there, as the statues of Osiris with his crosier bear witness, 
** Osiris himself being frequently represented as a crosier with an eye above it. 

* Nineveh and Babylon. Layard seems to think the instrument referred to, which 
is borne by the king, "attired as high priest in his sacrificial robes," a sickle; but 
any one who attentively examines it will see that it is a crosier, adorned with 
studs, as is commonly the case even now with the Roman crosiers, only, that 
instead of being held erect, it is held downwards. 

** The well known name Pharaoh, the title of the Pontiff-kings of Egypt, is just 
the Egyptian form of the Hebrew He- Roe. Pharaoh in Genesis, without the points, 
is "Phe-Roe." Phe is the Egyptian definite article. It was not shepherd- kings that 
the Egyptians abhorred, but Roi-Tzan, "shepherds of cattle" (Gen 46:34). Without 
the article Roe, a "shepherd," is manifestly the original of the French Roi, a king, 
whence the adjective royal; and from Ro, which signifies to "act the shepherd," 
which is frequently pronounced Reg- -(with Sh, which signifies "He who is," or 
"who does," affixed)- -comes Regah, "He who acts the shepherd," whence the 
Latin Rex, and Regal. 

Fig. 51: Babylonian Crosier 

From KITTO's Biblical Cyclopaedia, vol. i. p. 272. - See also 
KITTO's Illustrated Commentary, vol. iv. p. 31, where another 
figure from Babylon is given with a similar crosier. 

This is the case among the Negroes of Africa, whose god, called the Fetiche, is represented in the 
form of a crosier, as is evident from the following words of Hurd: "They place Fetiches before 
their doors, and these titular deities are made in the form of grapples or hooks, which we 
generally make use of to shake our fruit trees." This is the case at this hour in Thibet, where the 
Lamas or Theros bear, as stated by the Jesuit Hue, a crosier, as the ensign of their office. This is 
the case even in the far- distant Japan, where, in a description of the idols of the great temple of 
Miaco, the spiritual capital, we find this statement: "Their heads are adorned with rays of glory, 
and some of them have shepherds' crooks in their hands, pointing out that they are the guardians 
of mankind against all the machinations of evil spirits." The crosier of the Pope, then, which he 


bears as an emblem of his office, as the great shepherd of the sheep, is neither more nor less than 
the augur's crooked staff, or magic rod of the priests of Nimrod. 

Now, what say the worshippers of the apostolic succession to all this? What think they now of 
their vaunted orders as derived from Peter of Romel Surely they have much reason to be proud 
of them. But what, I further ask, would even the old Pagan priests say who left the stage of time 
while the martyrs were still battling against their gods, and, rather than symbolise with them, 
"loved not their lives unto the death," if they were to see the present aspect of the so-called 
Church of European Christendom? What would Belshazzar himself say, if it were possible for 
him to "revisit the glimpses of the moon," and enter St. Peter's at Rome, and see the Pope in his 
pontificals, in all his pomp and glory? Surely he would conclude that he had only entered one of 
his own well known temples, and that all things continued as they were at Babylon, on that 
memorable night, when he saw with astonished eyes the handwriting on the wall: "Mene, mene, 
tekel, Upharsin." 

Section II 
Priests, Monks, and Nuns 

If the head be corrupt, so also must be the members. If the Pope be essentially Pagan, what else 
can be the character of his clergy? If they derive their orders from a radically corrupted source, 
these orders must partake of the corruption of the source from which they flow. This might be 
inferred independently of any special evidence; but the evidence in regard to the Pagan character 
of the Pope's clergy is as complete as that in regard to the Pope himself. In whatever light the 
subject is viewed, this will be very apparent. 

There is a direct contrast between the character of the ministers of Christ, and that of the Papal 
priesthood. When Christ commissioned His servants, it was "to feed His sheep, to feed His 
lambs," and that with the Word of God, which testifies of Himself, and contains the words of 
eternal life. When the Pope ordains his clergy, he takes them bound to prohibit, except in special 
circumstances, the reading of the Word of God "in the vulgar tongue," that is, in a language 
which the people can understand. He gives them, indeed, a commission; and what is it? It is 
couched in these astounding words: "Receive the power of sacrificing for the living and the 
dead." What blasphemy could be worse than this? What more derogatory to the one sacrifice of 
Christ, whereby "He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified"? (Heb 10:14) This is the 
real distinguishing function of the popish priesthood. At the remembrance that this power, in 
these very words, had been conferred on him, when ordained to the priesthood, Luther used, in 
after years, with a shudder, to express his astonishment that "the earth had not opened its mouth 
and swallowed up both him who uttered these words, and him to whom they were addressed." 
The sacrifice which the papal priesthood are empowered to offer, as a "true propitiatory 
sacrifice" for the sins of the living and the dead, is just the "unbloody sacrifice" of the mass, 
which was offered up in Babylon long before it was ever heard of in Rome. 

Now, while Semiramis, the real original of the Chaldean Queen of Heaven, to whom the 
"unbloody sacrifice" of the mass was first offered, was in her own person, as we have already 
seen, the very paragon of impurity, she at the same time affected the greatest favour for that kind 
of sanctity which looks down with contempt on God's holy ordinance of marriage. The Mysteries 
over which she presided were scenes of the rankest pollution; and yet the higher orders of the 
priesthood were bound to a life of celibacy, as a life of peculiar and pre-eminent holiness. 


Strange though it may seem, yet the voice of antiquity assigns to that abandoned queen the 
invention of clerical celibacy, and that in the most stringent form. In some countries, as in Egypt, 
human nature asserted its rights, and though the general system of Babylon was retained, the 
yoke of celibacy was abolished, and the priesthood were permitted to marry. But every scholar 
knows that when the worship of Cybele, the Babylonian goddess, was introduced into Pagan 
Rome, it was introduced in its primitive form, with its celibate clergy. When the Pope 
appropriated to himself so much that was peculiar to the worship of that goddess, from the very 
same source, also, he introduced into the priesthood under his authority the binding obligation of 
celibacy. The introduction of such a principle into the Christian Church had been distinctly 
predicted as one grand mark of the apostacy, when men should "depart from the faith, and 
speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their consciences seared with a hot iron, should forbid to 
marry." The effects of its introduction were most disastrous. The records of all nations where 
priestly celibacy has been introduced have proved that, instead of ministering to the purity of 
those condemned to it, it has only plunged them in the deepest pollution. The history of Thibet, 
and China, and Japan, where the Babylonian institute of priestly celibacy has prevailed from time 
immemorial, bears testimony to the abominations that have flowed from it. The excesses 
committed by the celibate priests of Bacchus in Pagan Rome in their secret Mysteries, were such 
that the Senate felt called upon to expel them from the bounds of the Roman republic. In Papal 
Rome the same abominations have flowed from priestly celibacy, in connection with the corrupt 
and corrupting system of the confessional, insomuch that all men who have examined the subject 
have been compelled to admire the amazing significance of the name divinely bestowed on it, 
both in a literal and figurative sense, "Babylon the Great, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND 

* Revelation 17:5. The Rev. M. H. Seymour shows that in 1836 the whole number 
of births in Rome was 4373, while of these no fewer than 3160 were foundlings! 
What enormous profligacy does this reveal! --"Moral Results of the Romish 
System," in Evenings with Romanists. 

Out of a thousand facts of a similar kind, let one only be adduced, vouched for by the 
distinguished Roman Catholic historian De Thou. When Pope Paul V meditated the suppression 
of the licensed brothels in the "Holy City," the Roman Senate petitioned against his carrying his 
design into effect, on the ground that the existence of such places was the only means of 
hindering the priests from seducing their wives and daughter s\ ! 

These celibate priests have all a certain mark set upon them at their ordination; and that b the 
clerical tonsure. The tonsure is the first part of the ceremony of ordination; and it is held to be a 
most important element in connection with the orders of the Romish clergy. When, after long 
contendings, the Picts were at last brought to submit to the Bishop of Rome, the acceptance of 
this tonsure as the tonsure of St. Peter on the part of the clergy was the visible symbol of that 
submission. Naitan, the Pictish king, having assembled the nobles of his court and the pastors of 
his church, thus addressed them: "I recommend all the clergy of my kingdom to receive the 
tonsure." Then, without delay, as Bede informs us, this important revolution was accomplished 
by royal authority. He sent agents into every province, and caused all the ministers and monks to 
receive the circular tonsure, according to the Roman fashion, and thus to submit to Peter, "the 
most blessed Prince of the apostles." "It was the mark," says Merle DAubigne, "that Popes 
stamped not on the forehead, but on the crown. A royal proclamation, and a few clips of the 
scissors, placed the Scotch, like a flock of sheep, beneath the crook of the shepherd of the Tiber." 


Now, as Rome set so much importance on this tonsure, let it be asked what was the meaning of 
it? It was the visible inauguration of those who submitted to it as the priests of Bacchus. This 
tonsure cannot have the slightest pretence to Christian authority. It was indeed the "tonsure of 
Peter," but not of the Peter of Galilee, but of the Chaldean "Peter" of the Mysteries. He was a 
tonsured priest, for so was the god whose Mysteries he revealed. Centuries before the Christian 
era, thus spoke Herodotus of the Babylonian tonsure: "The Arabians acknowledge no other gods 
than Bacchus and Urania [i.e., the Queen of Heaven], and they say that their hair was cut in the 
same manner as Bacchus' is cut; now, they cut it in a circular form, shaving it around the 
temples." What, then, could have led to this tonsure of Bacchus? Everything in his history was 
mystically or hieroglyphically represented, and that in such a way as none but the initiated could 
understand. One of the things that occupied the most important place in the Mysteries was the 
mutilation to which he was subjected when he was put to death. In memory of that, he was 
lamented with bitter weeping every year, as "Rosh-Gheza," "the mutilated Prince." But "Rosh- 
Gheza" also signified the "clipped or shaved head." Therefore he was himself represented either 
with the one or the other form of tonsure; and his priests, for the same reason, at their ordination 
had their heads either clipped or shaven. Over all the world, where the traces of the Chaldean 
system are found, this tonsure or shaving of the head is always found along with it. The priests of 
Osiris, the Egyptian Bacchus, were always distinguished by the shaving of their heads. In Pagan 
Rome, in India, and even in China, the distinguishing mark of the Babylonian priesthood was the 
shaven head. Thus Gautama Buddha, who lived at least 540 years before Christ, when setting up 
the sect of Buddhism in India which spread to the remotest regions of the East, first shaved his 
own head, in obedience, as he pretended, to a Divine command, and then set to work to get 
others to imitate his example. One of the very titles by which he was called was that of the 
"Shaved- head." "The shaved-head," says one of the Purans, "that he might perform the orders of 
Vishnu, formed a number of disciples, and of shaved-heads like himself." The high antiquity of 
this tonsure may be seen from the enactment in the Mosaic law against it. The Jewish priests 
were expressly forbidden to make any baldness upon their heads (Lev 21:5), which sufficiently 
shows that, even so early as the time of Moses, the "shaved-head" had been already introduced. 
In the Church of Rome the heads of the ordinary priests are only clipped, the heads of the monks 
or regular clergy are shaven, but both alike, at their consecration, receive the circular tonsure, 
thereby identifying them, beyond all possibility of doubt, with Bacchus, "the mutilated Prince." * 

* It has been already shown that among the Chaldeans the one term "Zero" 
signified at once "a circle" and "the seed." "Suro," "the seed," in India, as we have 
seen, was the sun- divinity incarnate. When that seed was represented in human 
form, to identify him with the sun, he was represented with the circle, the well 
known emblem of the sun's annual course, on some part of his person. Thus our 
own god Thor was represented with a blazing circle on his breast. (WILSON'S 
Parsi Religion) In Persia and Assyria the circle was represented sometimes on the 
breast, sometimes round the waist, and sometimes in the hand of the sun-divinity. 
(BRYANT and LA YARD'S Nineveh and Babylon) In India it is represented at the 
tip of the finger. (MOOR'S Pantheon, "Vishnu") Hence the circle became the 
emblem of Tammuz born again, or "the seed." The circular tonsure of Bacchus 
was doubtless intended to point him out as "Zero," or "the seed," the grand 
deliverer. And the circle of light around the head of the so-called pictures of 
Christ was evidently just a different form of the very same thing, and borrowed 
from the very same source. The ceremony of tonsure, says Maurice, referring to 


the practice of that ceremony in India, "was an old practice of the priests of 
Mithra, who in their tonsures imitated the solar disk." Antiquities) As the sun- 
god was the great lamented god, and had his hair cut in a circular form, and the 
priests who lamented him had their hair cut in a similar manner, so in different 
countries those who lamented the dead and cut off their hair in honour of them, 
cut it in a circular form. There were traces of that in Greece, as appears from the 
Electra of Sophocles; and Herodotus particularly refers to it as practised among 
the Scythians when giving an account of a royal funeral among that people. "The 
body," says he, "is enclosed in wax. They then place it on a carriage, and remove 
it to another district, where the persons who receive it, like the Royal Scythians, 
cut off a part of their ear, shave their heads in a circular form ," &c. (Hist.) Now, 
while the Pope, as the grand representative of the false Messiah, received the 
circular tonsure himself, so all his priests to identify them with the same system 
are required to submit to the same circular tonsure, to mark them in their measure 
and their own sphere as representatives of that same false Messiah. 

Now, if the priests of Rome take away the key of knowledge, and lock up the Bible from the 
people; if they are ordained to offer the Chaldean sacrifice in honour of the Pagan Queen of 
Heaven; if they are bound by the Chaldean law of celibacy, that plunges them in profligacy; if, in 
short, they are all marked at their consecration with the distinguishing mark of the priests of the 
Chaldean Bacchus, what right, what possible right, can they have to be called ministers of 

But Rome has not only her ordinary secular clergy, as they are called; she has also, as every one 
knows, other religious orders of a different kind. She has innumerable armies of monks and nuns 
all engaged in her service. Where can there be shown the least warrant for such an institution in 
Scripture? In the religion of the Babylonian Messiah their institution was from the earliest times. 
In that system there were monks and nuns in abundance. In Thibet and Japan, where the 
Chaldean system was early introduced, monasteries are still to be found, and with the same 
disastrous results to morals as in Papal Europe. * 

* There are some, and Protestants, too, who begin to speak of what they call the 
benefits of monasteries in rude times, as if they were hurtful only when they fall 
into "decrepitude and corruption" ! Enforced celibacy, which lies at the foundation 
of the monastic system, is of the very essence of the Apostacy, which is divinely 
characterised as the "Mystery of Iniquity." Let such Protestants read 1 Timothy 
4:1-3, and surely they will never speak more of the abominations of the 
monasteries as coming only from their "decrepitude" ! 

In Scandinavia, the priestesses of Freya, who were generally kings' daughters, whose duty it was 
to watch the sacred fire, and who were bound to perpetual virginity, were just an order of nuns. 
In Athens there were virgins maintained at the public expense, who were strictly bound to single 
life. In Pagan Rome, the Vestal virgins, who had the same duty to perform as the priestesses of 
Freya, occupied a similar position. Even in Peru, during the reign of the Incas, the same system 
prevailed, and showed so remarkable an analogy, as to indicate that the Vestals of Rome, the 
nuns of the Papacy, and the Holy Virgins of Peru, must have sprung from a common origin. Thus 
does Prescott refer to the Peruvian nunneries: "Another singular analogy with Roman Catholic 
institutions is presented by the virgins of the sun, the elect, as they were called. These were 
young maidens dedicated to the service of the deity, who at a tender age were taken from their 


homes, and introduced into convents, where they were placed under the care of certain elderly 
matrons, mamaconas, * who had grown grey within their walls. It was their duty to watch over 
the sacred fire obtained at the festival of Raymi. From the moment they entered the 
establishment they were cut off from all communication with the world, even with their own 
family and friends... Woe to the unhappy maiden who was detected in an intrigue! by the stern 
law of the Incas she was to be buried alive." 

* Mamacona, "Mother Priestess," is almost pure Hebrew, being derived from Am 
a "mother," and Cohn, "a priest," only with the feminine termination. Our own 
Mamma, as well as that of Peru, is just the Hebrew Am reduplicated. It is singular 
that the usual style and title of the Lady Abbess in Ireland is the "Reverend 
Mother." The term Nun itself is a Chaldean word. Ninus, the son in Chaldee is 
either Nin or Non. Now, the feminine of Non, a "son," is Nonna, a "daughter," 
which is just the Popish canonical name for a "Nun," and Nonnus, in like manner, 
was in early times the designation for a monk in the East. (GIESELER) 

This was precisely the fate of the Roman Vestal who was proved to have violated her vow. 
Neither in Peru, however, nor in Pagan Rome was the obligation to virginity so stringent as in 
the Papacy. It was not perpetual, and therefore not so exceedingly demoralising. After a time, the 
nuns might be delivered from their confinement, and marry; from all hopes of which they are 
absolutely cut off in the Church of Rome. In all these cases, however, it is plain that the principle 
on which these institutions were founded was originally he same. "One is astonished," adds 
Prescott, "to find so close a resemblance between the institutions of the American Indian, the 
ancient Roman, and the modern Catholic." 

Prescott finds it difficult to account for this resemblance; but the one little sentence from the 
prophet Jeremiah, which was quoted at the commencement of this inquiry, accounts for it 
completely: "Babylon hath been a golden cup in the Lord's hand, that hath made ALL THE 
EARTH drunken" (Jer 51:7). This is the Rosetta stone that has helped already to bring to light so 
much of the secret iniquity of the Papacy, and that is destined still further to decipher the dark 
mysteries of every system of heathen mythology that either has been or that is. The statement of 
this text can be proved to be a literal fact. It can be proved that the idolatry of the whole earth is 
one, that the sacred language of all nations is radically Chaldean- -that the GREAT GODS of 
every country and clime are called by Babylonian names--and that all the Paganisms of the 
human race are only a wicked and deliberate, but yet most instructive corruption of the primeval 
gospel first preached in Eden, and through Noah, afterwards conveyed to all mankind. The 
system, first concocted in Babylon, and thence conveyed to the ends of the earth, has been 
modified and diluted in different ages and countries. In Papal Rome only is it now found nearly 
pure and entire. But yet, amid all the seeming variety of heathenism, there is an astonishing 
oneness and identity, bearing testimony to the truth of God's Word. The overthrow of all idolatry 
cannot now be distant. But before the idols of the heathens shall be finally cast to the moles and 
to the bats, I am persuaded that they will be made to fall down and worship "the Lord the king," 
to bear testimony to His glorious truth, and with one loud and united acclaim, ascribe salvation, 
and glory, and honour, and power unto Him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb, for 
ever and ever. 


Chapter VII 
The Two Developments Historically and Prophetically Considered 

Hitherto we have considered the history of the Two Babylons chiefly in detail. Now we are to 
view them as organised systems. The idolatrous system of the ancient Babylon assumed different 
phases in different periods of its history. In the prophetic description of the modern Babylon, 
there is evidently also a development of different powers at different times. Do these two 
developments bear any typical relation to each other? Yes, they do. When we bring the religious 
history of the ancient Babylonian Paganism to bear on the prophetic symbols that shadow forth 
the organised working of idolatry in Rome, it will be found that it casts as much light on this 
view of the subject as on that which has hitherto engaged our attention. The powers of iniquity at 
work in the modern Babylon are specifically described in chapters 12 and 13 of the Revelation; 
and they are as follows:--I. The Great Red Dragon; II. The Beast that comes up out of the sea; 
III. The Beast that ascendeth out of the earth; and IV. The Image of the Beast. In all these 
respects it will be found, on inquiry, that, in regard to succession and order of development, the 
Paganism of the Old Testament Babylon was the exact type of the Paganism of the new. 

Section I 
The Great Red Dragon 

This formidable enemy of the truth is particularly described in Revelation 12:3--"And there 
appeared another wonder in heaven, a great red dragon." It is admitted on all hands that this is 
the first grand enemy that in Gospel times assaulted the Christian Church. If the terms in which it 
is described, and the deeds attributed to it, are considered, it will be found that there is a great 
analogy between it and the first enemy of all, that appeared against the ancient Church of God 
soon after the Flood. The term dragon, according to the associations currently connected with it, 
is somewhat apt to mislead the reader, by recalling to his mind the fabulous dragons of the Dark 
Ages, equipped with wings. At the time this Divine description was given, the term dragon had 
no such meaning among either profane or sacred writers. "The dragon of the Greeks," says 
Pausanias, "was only a large snake"; and the context shows that this is the very case here; for 
what in the third verse is called a "dragon," in the fourteenth is simply described as a "serpent." 
Then the word rendered "Red" properly means "Fiery"; so that the "Red Dragon" signifies the 
"Fiery Serpent" or "Serpent of Fire." Exactly so does it appear to have been in the first form of 
idolatry, that, under the patronage of Nimrod, appeared in the ancient world. The "Serpent of 
Fire" in the plains of Shinar seems to have been the grand object of worship. There is the 
strongest evidence that apostacy among the sons of Noah began in fire-worship, and that in 
connection with the symbol of the serpent. 

We have seen already, on different occasions, that fire was worshipped as the enlightener and the 
purifier. Now, it was thus at the very beginning; for Nimrod is singled out by the voice of 
antiquity as commencing this fire-worship. The identity of Nimrod and Ninus has already been 
proved; and under the name of Ninus, also, he is represented as originating the same practice. In 
a fragment of Apollodorus it is said that "Ninus taught the Assyrians to worship fire." The sun, 
as the great source of light and heat, was worshipped under the name of Baal. Now, the fact that 
the sun, under that name, was worshipped in the earliest ages of the world, shows the audacious 
character of these first beginnings of apostacy. Men have spoken as if the worship of the sun and 
of the heavenly bodies was a very excusable thing, into which the human race might very readily 


and very innocently fall. But how stands the fact? According to the primitive language of 
mankind, the sun was called "Shemesh"--that is, "the Servant"- -that name, no doubt, being 
divinely given, to keep the world in mind of the great truth that, however glorious was the orb of 
day, it was, after all, the appointed Minister of the bounty of the great unseen Creator to His 
creatures upon earth. Men knew this, and yet with the full knowledge of it, they put the servant 
in the place of the Master; and called the sun Baal--that is, the Lord--and worshipped him 
accordingly. What a meaning, then, in the saying of Paul, that, "when they knew God, they 
glorified Him not as God"; but "changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served 
the creature more than the Creator, who is God over all, blessed for ever." The beginning, then, 
of sun-worship, and of the worship of the host of heaven, was a sin against the light--a 
presumptuous, heaven-daring sin. As the sun in the heavens was the great object of worship, so 
fire was worshipped as its earthly representative. To this primeval fire-worship Vitruvius alludes 
when he says that "men were first formed into states and communities by meeting around fires." 
And this is exactly in conformity with what we have already seen in regard to Phoroneus, whom 
we have identified with Nimrod, that while he was said to be the "inventor of fire," he was also 
regarded as the first that "gathered mankind into communities." 

Fig. 52: The Deified Serpent, or Serpent of Fire 

From Phoenician Coin, in MAURICE'S Indian Antiquities, vol. vi. p. 386. London, 1796. 

Along with the sun, as the great fire- god, and, in due time, identified with him, was the serpent 
worshipped. (See Fig. 52 ). "In the mythology of the primitive world," says Owen, "the serpent is 
universally the symbol of the sun." In Egypt, one of the commonest symbols of the sun, or sun- 
god, is a disc with a serpent around it. The original reason of that identification seems just to 
have been that, as the sun was the great enlightener of the physical world, so the serpent was held 
to have been the great enlightener of the spiritual, by giving mankind the "knowledge of good 
and evil." This, of course, implies tremendous depravity on the part of the ring- leaders in such a 
system, considering the period when it began; but such appears to have been the real meaning of 
the identification. At all events, we have evidence, both Scriptural and profane, for the fact, that 
the worship of the serpent began side by side with the worship of fire and the sun. The inspired 
statement of Paul seems decisive on the subject. It was, he says, "when men knew God, but 


glorified Him not as God," that they changed the glory of God, not only into an image made like 
to corruptible man, but into the likeness of Creeping things' '—that is, of serpents (Rom 1:23). 
With this profane history exactly coincides. Of profane writers, Sanchuniathon, the Phoenician, 
who is believed to have lived about the time of Joshua, says--"Thoth first attributed something of 
the divine nature to the serpent and the serpent tribe, in which he was followed by the 
Phoenicians and Egyptians. For this animal was esteemed by him to be the most spiritual of all 
the reptiles, and of a FIERY nature, inasmuch as it exhibits an incredible celerity, moving by its 
spirit, without either hands or feet... Moreover, it is long-lived, and has the quality of 
RENEWING ITS YOUTH. Thoth has laid down in the sacred books; upon which accounts 
this animal is introduced in the sacred rites and Mysteries." 

Now, Thoth, it will be remembered, was the counsellor of Thamus, that is, Nimrod. From this 
statement, then, we are led to the conclusion that serpent- worship was a part of the primeval 
apostacy of Nimrod. The "FIERY NATURE" of the serpent, alluded to in the above extract, is 
continually celebrated by the heathen poets. Thus Virgil, "availing himself," as the author of 
Pompeii remarks, "of the divine nature attributed to serpents," describes the sacred serpent that 
came from the tomb of Anchises, when his son Aeneas had been sacrificing before it, in such 
terms as illustrate at once the language of the Phoenician, and the "Fiery Serpent" of the passage 
before us:— 

"Scarce had he finished, when, with speckled pride, 

A serpent from the tomb began to glide; 

His hugy bulk on seven high volumes rolled, 

Blue was his breadth of back, but streaked with scaly gold. 

Thus, riding on his curls, he seemed to pass 

A rolling fire along, and singe the grass." 

It is not wonderful, then, the fire-worship and serpent-worship should be conjoined. The serpent, 
also, as "renewing its youth" every year, was plausibly represented to those who wished an 
excuse for idolatry as a meet emblem of the sun, the great regenerator, who every year 
regenerates and renews the face of nature, and who, when deified, was worshipped as the grand 
Regenerator of the souls of men. 

In the chapter under consideration, the "great fiery serpent" is represented with all the emblems 
of royalty. All its heads are encircled with "crowns or diadems"; and so in Egypt, the serpent of 
fire, or serpent of the sun, in Greek was called the Basilisk, that s, the "royal serpent," to 
identify it with Moloch, which name, while it recalls the ideas both of fire and blood, properly 
signifies 'the King." The Basilisk was always, among the Egyptians, and among many nations 
besides, regarded as "the very type of majesty and dominion." As such, its image was worn 
affixed to the head-dress of the Egyptian monarchs; and it was not lawful for any one else to 
wear it. The sun identified with this serpent was called "P'ouro," which signifies at one "the Fire" 
and "the King," and from this very name the epithet "Purros," the "Fiery," is given to the "Great 
seven- crowned serpent" of our text. * 

* The word Purros in the text does not exclude the idea of "Red," for the sun- god 
was painted red to identify him with Moloch, at once the god of fire and god of 
bloo d.— (WILKINSON). The primary leading idea, however, is that of Fire. 

Thus was the Sun, the Great Fire-god, identified with the Serpent. But he had also a human 
representative, and that was Tammuz, for whom the daughters of Israel lamented, in other words 


Nimrod. We have already seen the identity of Nimrod and Zoroaster. Now, Zoroaster was not 

1 "\ 

only the head of the Chaldean Mysteries, but, as all admit, the head of the fire- worshippers. 

Zoroaster, the Head of the Fire-Worshippers 

That Zoroaster was head of the fire -worshippers, the following, among other evidence, may prove. Not to mention 
that the name Zoroaster is almost a synonym for a fire -worshipper, the testimony of Plutarch is of weight: "Plutarch 
acknowledges that Zoroaster among the Chaldeans instituted the Magi, in imitation of whom the Persians also had 
their (Magi). * The Arabian History also relates that Zaradussit, or Zerdusht, did not for the first time institute, but 
(only) reform the religion of the Persians and Magi, who had been divided into many sects." 

* The great antiquity of the institution of the Magi is proved from the statement of Aristotle already referred to, as 
preserved in Theopompus, which makes them to have been "more ancient than the Egyptians," whose antiquity is well 
known. (Theopompi Fragmenta in MULLER). 

The testimony of Agathias is to the same effect. He gives it as his opinion that the worship of fire came from the 
Chaldeans to the Persians. That the Magi among the Persians were the guardians of "the sacred and eternal fire" may 
be assumed from Curtius, who says that fire was carried before them "on silver altars"; from the statement of Strabo 
(Geograph.), that "the Magi kept upon the altar a quantity of ashes and an immortal fire," and of Herodotus, that 
"without them, no sacrifice could be offered." The fire -worship was an essential part of the system of the Persian 
Magi (WILSON, Parsee Religion). This fire-worship the Persian Magi did not pretend to have invented; but their 
popular story carried the origin of it up to the days of Hoshang, the father of Tahmurs, who founded Babylon 
(WILSON)- -i.e., the time of Nimrod. In confirmation of this, we have seen that a fragment of Apollodorus makes 
Ninus the head of the fire- worshipper, Layard, quoting this fragment, supposes Ninus to be different from Zoroaster 
{Nineveh and its Remains); but it can be proved, that though many others bore the name of Zoroaster, the lines of 
evidence all converge, so as to demonstrate that Ninus and Nimrod and Zoroaster were one. The legends of 
Zoroaster show that he was known not only as a Magus, but as a Warrior (ARNOBIUS). Plato says that Eros 
Armenius (whom CLERICUS, De Chaldaeis, states to have been the same as the fourth Zoroaster) died and rose 
again after ten days, having been killed in battle; and that what he pretended to have learned in Hades, he 
communicated to men in his new life (PLATO, De Republica). We have seen the death of Nimrod, the original 
Zoroaster, was not that of a warrior slain in battle; but yet this legend of the warrior Zoroaster is entirely in favour of 
the supposition that the original Zoroaster, the original Head of the Magi, was not a priest merely, but a warrior- 
king. Everywhere are the Zoroastrians, or fire -worshippers, called Guebres or Gabrs. Now, Genesis 10:8 proves that 
Nimrod was the first of the "Gabrs." 

As Zoroaster was head of the fire -worshippers, so Tammuz was evidently the same. We have seen evidence already 
that sufficiently proves the identity of Tammuz and Nimrod; but a few words may still more decisively prove it, and 
cast further light on the primitive fire-worship. 1 . In the first place, Tammuz and Adonis are proved to be the same 
divinity. Jerome, who lived in Palestine when the rites of Tammuz were observed, up to the very time when he 
wrote, expressly identifies Tammuz and Adonis, in his Commentary on Ezekiel, where the Jewish women are 
represented as weeping for Tammuz; and the testimony of Jerome on this subject is universally admitted. Then the 
mode in which the rites of Tammuz or Adonis were celebrated in Syria was essentially the same as the rites of 
Osiris. The statement of Lucian (De Dea Syria) strikingly shows this, and Bunsen distinctly admits it. The identity 
of Osiris and Nimrod has been largely proved in the body of this work. When, therefore, Tammuz or Adonis is 
identified with Osiris, the identification of Tammuz with Nimrod follows of course. And then this entirely agrees 
with the language of Bion, in his Lament for Adonis, where he represents Venus as going in a frenzy of grief, like a 
Bacchant, after the death of Adonis, through the woods and valleys, and "calling upon her Assyrian husband." It 
equally agrees with the statement of Maimonides, that when Tammuz was put to death, the grand scene of weeping 
for that death was in the temple of Babylon. 2. Now, if Tammuz was Nimrod, the examination of the meaning of the 
name confirms the connection of Nimrod with the first fire-worship. After what has already been advanced, there 
needs no argument to show that, as the Chaldeans were the first who introduced the name and power of kings 
(SYNCELLUS), and as Nimrod was unquestionably the first of these kings, and the first, consequently, that bore the 
title of Moloch, or king, so it was in honour of him that the "children were made to pass through the fire to Moloch." 
But the intention of that passing through the fire was undoubtedly to purify. The name Tammuz has evidently 
reference to this, for it signifies "to perfect," that is, "to purify" * "by fire"; and if Nimrod was, as the Paschal 
Chronicle, and the general voice of antiquity, represent him to have been, the originator of fire-worship, this name 
very exactly expresses his character in that respect. 


* From tarn, "to perfect," and muz, "to burn." To be "pure in heart" in Scripture is just the same as to be "perfect in heart." 
The well-known name Deucalion, as connected with the flood, seems to be a correlative term of the water- worshippers. 
Dukh-kaleh signifies "to purify by washing," from Dikh, "to wash" (CLAVIS STOCKII), and Khaleh, "to complete," or 
"perfect." The noun from the latter verb, found in 2 Chronicles 4:21, shows that the root means "to purify," "perfect gold" 
being in the Septuagint justly rendered "pure gold." There is a name sometimes applied to the king of the gods that has 
some bearing on this subject. That name is "Akmon." What is the meaning of it? It is evidently just the Chaldee form of the 
Hebrew Khmn, "the burner," which becomes Akmon in the same way as the Hebrew Dem, "blood," in Chaldee becomes 
"Adem." Hesychius says that Akmon is Kronos, sub voce "Akmon." In Virgil (Aeneid) we find this name compounded so 
as to be an exact synonym for Tammuz, Pyracmon being the name of one of the three famous Cyclops whom the poet 
introduces. We have seen that the original Cyclops were Kronos and his brethren, and deriving the name from "Pur," the 
Chaldee form of Bur, "to purify," and "Akmon," it just signifies "The purifying burner." 

It is evident, however, from the Zoroastrian verse, elsewhere quoted, that fire itself was worshipped as Tammuz, for 
it is called the "Father that perfected all things." In one respect this represented fire as the Creative god; but in 
another, there can be no doubt that it had reference to the "perfecting" of men by "purifying" them. And especially it 
perfected those whom it consumed. This was the very idea that, from time immemorial until very recently, led so 
many widows in India to immolate themselves on the funeral piles of their husbands, the woman who thus burned 
herself being counted blessed, because she became Suttee *— i.e., "Pure by burning." 

* MOOR'S Pantheon, "Siva." The epithet for a woman that burns herself is spelled "Sati," but is pronounced "Suttee," as 

And this also, no doubt, reconciled the parents who actually sacrificed their children to Moloch, to the cruel 
sacrifice, the belief being cherished that the fire that consumed them also "perfected" them, and made them meet for 
eternal happiness. As both the passing through the fire, and the burning in the fire, were essential rites in the worship 
of Moloch or Nimrod, this is an argument that Nimrod was Tammuz. As the priest and representative of the 
perfecting or purifying fire, it was he that carried on the work of perfecting or purifying by fire, and so he was called 
by its name. 

When we turn to the legends of India, we find evidence to the very same effect as that which we have seen with 
regard to Zoroaster and Tammuz as head of the fire -worshippers. The fifth head of Brahma, that was cut off for 
inflicting distress on the three worlds, by the "effulgence of its dazzling beams," referred to in the text of this work, 
identifies itself with Nimrod. The fact that that fifth head was represented as having read the Vedas, or sacred books 
produced by the other four heads, shows, I think, a succession. * 

* The Indian Vedas that now exist do not seem to be of very great antiquity as written documents; but the legend goes 
much further back than anything that took place in India. The antiquity of writing seems to be very great, but whether or 
not there was any written religious document in Nimrod's day, a Veda there must have been; for what is the meaning of the 
word "Veda"? It is evidently just the same as the Anglo-Saxon Edda with the digamma prefixed, and both alike evidently 
come from "Ed" a "Testimony," a "Religious Record," or "confession of Faith." Such a "Record" or "Confession," either 
"oral" or "written," must have existed from the beginning. 

Now, coming down from Noah, what would that succession be? We have evidence from Berosus, that, in the days of 
Belus— that is, Nimrod- -the custom of making representations like that of two -headed Janus, had begun. Assume, 
then, that Noah, as having lived in two worlds, has his two heads. Ham is the third, Cush the fourth, and Nimrod is, 
of course, the fifth. And this fifth head was cut off for doing the very thing for which Nimrod actually was cut off. I 
suspect that this Indian myth is the key to open up the meaning of a statement of Plutarch, which, according to the 
terms of it, as it stands, is visibly absurd. It is as follows: Plutarch (in the fourth book of his Symposiaca) says that 
"the Egyptians were of the opinion that darkness was prior to light, and that the latter [viz. light] was produced from 
mice, in the fifth generation, at the time of the new moon." In India, we find that "a new moon" was produced in a 
different sense from the ordinary meaning of that term, and that the production of that new moon was not only 
important in Indian mythology, but evidently agreed in time with the period when the fifth head of Brahma scorched 
the world with its insufferable splendour. The account of its production runs thus: that the gods and mankind were 
entirely discontented with the moon which they had got, "Because it gave no light," and besides the plants were poor 
and the fruits of no use, and that therefore they churned the White sea [or, as it is commonly expressed, "they 
churned the ocean"], when all things were mingled— i.e., were thrown into confusion, and that then a new moon, 
with a new regent, was appointed, which brought in an entirely new system of things {Asiatic Researches). From 
MAURICE'S Indian Antiquities, we learn that at this very time of the churning of the ocean, the earth was set on fire, 
and a great conflagration was the result. But the name of the moon in India is Soma, or Som (for the final a is only a 
breathing, and the word is found in the name of the famous temple of Somnaut, which name signifies "Lord of the 
Moon"), and the moon in India is male. As this transaction is symbolical, the question naturally arises, who could be 


The title given to Nimrod, as the first of the Babylonian kings, by Berosus, indicates the same 
thing. That title is Alorus, that is, "the god of fire." As Nimrod, "the god of fire," was Molk- 
Gheber, or, "the Mighty king," inasmuch as he was the first who was called Moloch, or King, 
and the first who began to be "mighty" {Gheber) on the earth, we see at once how it was that the 
"passing through the fire to Moloch" originated, and how the god of fire among the Romans 
came to be called "Mulkiber." * 

* Commonly spelled Mulciber (OVID, Art. Am.); but the Roman c was hard. 
From the epithet "Gheber," the Parsees, or fire-worshippers of India, are still 
called "Guebres." 

It was only after his death, however, that he appears to have been deified. Then, retrospectively, 
he was worshipped as the child of the Sun, or the Sun incarnate. In his own life-time, however, 
he set up no higher pretensions than that of being Bol-Khan, or Priest of Baal, from which the 
other name of the Roman fire- god Vulcan is evidently derived. Everything in the history of 
Vulcan exactly agrees with that of Nimrod. Vulcan was "the most ugly and deformed" of all the 
gods. Nimrod, over all the world, is represented with the features and complexion of a negro. 
Though Vulcan was so ugly, that when he sought a wife, "all the beautiful goddesses rejected 
him with horror"; yet "Destiny, the irrevocable, interposed, and pronounced the decree, by which 
[Venus] the most beautiful of the goddesses, was united to the most unsightly of the gods." So, in 
spite of the black and Cushite features of Nimrod, he had for his queen Semiramis, the most 
beautiful of women. The wife of Vulcan was noted for her infidelities and licentiousness; the 
wife of Nimrod was the very same. * Vulcan was the head and chief of the Cyclops, that is, "the 
kings of flame." ** 

* Nimrod, as universal king, was Khuk-hold, "King of the world." As such, the 
emblem of his power was the bull's horns. Hence the origin of the Cuckhold's 

meant by the moon, or regent of the moon, who was cast off in the fifth generation of the world? The name Som 
shows at once who he must have been. Som is just the name of Shem; for Shem's name comes from Shorn, "to 
appoint," and is legitimately represented either by the name Som, or Sem, as it is in Greek; and it was precisely to 
get rid of Shem (either after his father's death, or when the infirmities of old age were coming upon him) as the great 
instructor of the world, that is, as the great diffuser of spiritual light, that in the fifth generation the world was 
thrown into confusion and the earth set on fire. The propriety of Shem's being compared to the moon will appear if 
we consider the way in which his father Noah was evidently symbolised. The head of a family is divinely compared 
to the sun, as in the dream of Joseph (Gen 37:9), and it may be easily conceived how Noah would, by his posterity in 
general, be looked up to as occupying the paramount place as the Sun of the world; and accordingly Bryant, Davies, 
Faber, and others, have agreed in recognising Noah as so symbolised by Paganism. When, however, his younger 
son— for Shem was younger than Japhet— (Gen 10:21) was substituted for his father, to whom the world had looked 
up in comparison of the "greater light," Shem would naturally, especially by those who disliked him and rebelled 
against him, be compared to "the lesser light," or the moon. * 

* "As to the kingdom, the Oriental Oneirocritics, jointly say, that the sun is the symbol of the king, and the moon of the 
next to him in power." This sentence extracted from DAUBUZ's Symbolical Dictionary, illustrated with judicious notes by 
my learned friend, the Rev. A. Forbes, London, shows that the conclusion to which I had come before seeing it, in regard to 
the symbolical meaning of the moon, is entirely in harmony with Oriental modes of thinking. 

Now, the production of light by mice at this period, comes in exactly to confirm this deduction. A mouse in Chaldee 
is "Aakbar"; and Gheber, or Kheber, in Arabic, Turkish, and some of the other eastern dialects, becomes "Akbar," as 
in the well-known Moslem saying, "Allar Akbar," "God is Great." So that the whole statement of Plutarch, when 
stripped of its nonsensical garb, just amounts to this, that light was produced by the Guebres or fire -worshippers, 
when Nimrod was set up in opposition to Shem, as the representative of Noah, and the great enlightener of the 


** Kuclops, from Khuk, "king," and Lohb, "flame." The image of the great god 
was represented with three eyes- -one in the forehead; hence the story of the 
Cyclops with the one eye in the forehead. 

Nimrod was the head of the fire- worshippers. Vulcan was the forger of the thunderbolts by 
which such havoc was made among the enemies of the gods. Ninus, or Nimrod, in his wars with 
the king of Bactria, seems to have carried on the conflict in a similar way. From Arnobius we 
learn, that when the Assyrians under Ninus made war against the Bactrians, the warfare was 
waged not only by the sword and bodily strength, but by magic and by means derived from the 
secret instructions of the Chaldeans. When it is known that the historical Cyclops are, by the 
historian Castor, traced up to the very time of Saturn or Belus, the first king of Babylon, and 
when we learn that Jupiter (who was worshipped in the very same character as Ninus, "the 
child"), when fighting against the Titans, "received from the Cyclops aid" by means of "dazzling 
lightnings and thunders," we may have some pretty clear idea of the magic arts derived from the 
Chaldean Mysteries, which Ninus employed against the Bactrian king. There is evidence that, 
down to a late period, the priests of the Chaldean Mysteries knew the composition of the 
formidable Greek fire, which burned under water, and the secret of which has been lost; and 
there can be little doubt that Nimrod, in erecting his power, availed himself of such or similar 
scientific secrets, which he and his associates alone possessed. 

In these, and other respects yet to be noticed, there is an exact coincidence between Vulcan, the 
god of fire of the Romans, and Nimrod, the fire-god of Babylon. In the case of the classic 
Vulcan, it is only in his character of the fire-god as a physical agent that he is popularly 
represented. But it was in his spiritual aspects, in cleansing and regenerating the souls of men, 
that the fire-worship told most effectually on the world. The power, the popularity, and skill of 
Nimrod, as well as the seductive nature of the system itself, enabled him to spread the delusive 
doctrine far and wide, as he was represented under the well-known name of Phaethon, 14 as on the 

The Story of Phaethon 

The identity of Phaethon and Nimrod has much to support it besides the prima facie evidence arising from the 
statement that Phaethon was an Ethiopian or Cushite, and the resemblance of his fate, in being cast down from 
heaven while driving the chariot of the sun, as "the child of the Sun," to the casting down of Molk-Gheber, whose 
very name, as the god of fire, identifies him with Nimrod. 1. Phaethon is said by Apollodorus to have been the son 
of Tithonus; but if the meaning of the name Tithonus be examined, it will be evident that he was Tithonus himself. 
Tithonus was the husband of Aurora (DYMOCK). In the physical sense, as we have already seen, Aur-ora signifies 
"The awakener of the light"; to correspond with this Tithonus signifies "The kindler of light," or "setter on fire." * 

* From Tzet or Tzit, "to kindle," or "set on fire," which in Chaldee becomes Tit, and Thon, "to give." 

Now "Phaethon, the son of Tithonus," is in Chaldee "Phaethon Bar Tithon." But this also signifies "Phaethon, the 
son that set on fire." Assuming, then, the identity of Phaethon and Tithonus, this goes far to identify Phaethon with 
Nimrod; for Homer, as we have seen (Odyssey), mentions the marriage of Aurora with Orion, the mighty Hunter, 
whose identity with Nimrod is established. Then the name of the celebrated son that sprang from the union between 
Aurora and Tithonus, shows that Tithonus, in his original character, must have been indeed the same as "the mighty 
hunter" of Scripture, for the name of that son was Memnon (MARTIAL and OVID, Metam.), which signifies "The 
son of the spotted one," * thereby identifying the father with Nimrod, whose emblem was the spotted leopard's skin. 

* From Mem or Mom, "spotted," and Non, "a son." 

As Ninus or Nimrod, was worshipped as the son of his own wife, and that wife Aurora, the goddess of the dawn, we 
see how exact is the reference to Phaethon, when Isaiah, speaking of the King of Babylon, who was his 
representative, says, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning" (Isa 14:12). The marriage of 
Orion with Aurora; in other words, his setting up as "The kindler of light," or becoming the "author of fire-worship," 


point of "setting the whole world on fire," or (without the poetical metaphor) of involving all 
mankind in the guilt of fire-worship. The extraordinary prevalence of the worship of the fire- god 
in the early ages of the world, is proved by legends found over all the earth, and by facts in 
almost every clime. Thus, in Mexico, the natives relate, that in primeval times, just after the first 
age, the world was burnt up with fire. As their history, like the Egyptian, was written in 
Hieroglyphics, it is plain that this must be symbolically understood. In India, they have a legend 
to the very same effect, though somewhat varied in its form. The Brahmins say that, fa a very 
remote period of the past, one of the gods shone with such insufferable splendour, "inflicting 
distress on the universe by his effulgent beams, brighter than a thousand worlds," * that, unless 

is said by Homer to have been the cause of his death, he having in consequence perished under the wrath of the 
gods. 2. That Phaethon was currently represented as the son of Aurora, the common story, as related by Ovid, 
sufficiently proves. While Phaethon claimed to be the son of Phoebus, or the sun, he was reproached with being only 
the son of Merops— i.e., of the mortal husband of his mother Clymene (OVID, Metam.). The story implies that that 
mother gave herself out to be Aurora, not in the physical sense of that term, but in its mystical sense; as "The woman 
pregnant with light"; and, consequently, her son was held up as the great "Light-bringer" who was to enlighten the 
world, --"Lucifer, the son of the morning," who was the pretended enlightener of the souls of men. The name 
Lucifer, in Isaiah, is the very word from which Eleleus, one of the names of Bacchus, evidently comes. It comes 
from "Helel," which signifies "to irradiate" or "to bring light," and is equivalent to the name Tithon. Now we have 
evidence that Lucifer, the son of Aurora, or the morning, was worshipped in the very same character as Nimrod, 
when he appeared in his new character as a little child. 

This Phaethon, or Lucifer, who was cast down is further proved to be Janus; for Janus is called "Pater Matutinus" 
(HORACE); and the meaning of this name will appear in one of its aspects when the meaning of the name of the 
Dea Matuta is ascertained. Dea Matuta signifies "The kindling or Light-bringing goddess," * and accordingly, by 
Priscian, she is identified with Aurora. 

* Matuta comes from the same word as Tithonus— i.e., Tzet, Tzit, or Tzut, which in Chaldee becomes Tet, Tit, or Tut, "to 
light" or "set on fire." From Tit, "to set on fire," comes the Latin Titio, "a firebrand"; and from Tut, with the formative M 
prefixed, comes Matuta-just as from Nasseh, "to forget," with the same formative prefixed, comes Manasseh, "forgetthg," 
the name of the eldest son of Joseph (Gen 41:51). The root of this verb is commonly given as "Itzt"; but see BAKER'S 
Lexicon, where it is also given as "Tzt." It is evidently from this root that the Sanscrit "Suttee" already referred to comes. 

Matutinus is evidently just the correlate of Matuta, goddess of the morning; Janus, therefore, as Matutinus, is 
"Lucifer, son of the morning." But further, Matuta is identified with Ino, after she had plunged into the sea, and had, 
along with her son Melikerta, been changed into a sea-divinity. Consequently her son Melikerta, "king of the walled 
city," is the same as Janus Matutinus, or Lucifer, Phaethon, or Nimrod. 

There is still another link by which Melikerta, the sea-divinity, or Janus Matutinus, is identified with the primitive 
god of the fire- worshippers. The most common name of Ino, or Matuta, after she had passed through the waters, was 
Leukothoe (OVID, Metam.). Now, Leukothoe or Leukothea has a double meaning, as it is derived either from 
"Lukhoth," which signifies "to light," or "set on fire," or from Lukoth "to glean." In the Maltese medal, the ear of 
corn, at the side of the goddess, which is more commonly held in her hand, while really referring in its hidden 
meaning to her being the Mother of Bar, "the son," to the uninitiated exhibits her as Spicilega, or "The Gleaner," — 
"the popular name," says Hyde, "for the female with the ear of wheat represented in the constellation Virgo." In 
Bryant, Cybele is represented with two or three ears of corn in her hand; for as there were three peculiarly 
distinguished Bacchuses, there were consequently as many "Bars," and she might therefore be represented with one, 
two, or three ears in her hand. But to revert to the Maltese medal just referred to, the flames coming out of the head 
of Lukothea, the "Gleaner," show that, though she has passed through the waters, she is still Lukhothea, "the 
Burner," or "Light-giver." And the rays around the mitre of the god on the reverse entirely agree with the character 
of that god as Eleleus, or Phaethon-in other words, as "The Shining Bar." Now, this "Shining Bar," as Melikerta, 
"king of the walled city," occupies the very place of "Ala-Mahozim," whose representative the Pope is elsewhere 
proved to be. But he is equally the sea-divinity, who in that capacity wears the mitre of Dagon. The fish-head mitre 
which the Pope wears shows that, in this character also, as the "Beast from the sea," he is the unquestionable 
representative of Melikerta. 


another more potent god had interposed and cut off his head, the result would have been most 

Mythology, p. 275. In the myth, this divinity is represented as the fifth head of 
Brahma; but as this head is represented as having gained the knowledge that made 
him so insufferably proud by perusing the Vedas produced by the other four heads 
of Brahma, that shows that he must have been regarded as having a distinct 

In the Druidic Triads of the old British Bards, there is distinct reference to the same event. They 
say that in primeval times a "tempest of fire arose, which split the earth asunder to the great 
deep," from which none escaped but "the select company shut up together in the enclosure with 
the strong door," with the great "patriarch distinguished for his integrity," that is evidently with 
Shem, the leader of the faithful- -who preserved their "integrity" when so many made shipwreck 
of faith and a good conscience. These stories all point to one and the same period, and they show 
how powerful had been this form of apostacy. The Papal purgatory and the fires of St. John's 
Eve, which we have already considered, and many other fables or practices still extant, are just 
so many relics of the same ancient superstition. 

It will be observed, however, that the Great Red Dragon, or Great Fiery Serpent, is represented 
as standing before the Woman with the crown of twelve stars, that is, the true Church of God, 
"To devour her child as soon as it should be born." Now, this is in exact accordance with the 
character of the Great Head of the system of fire-worship. Nimrod, as the representative of the 
devouring fire to which human victims, and especially children, were offered in sacrifice, was 
regarded as the great child- devourer. Though, at his first deification, he was set up himself as 
Ninus, or the child, yet, as the first of mankind that was deified, he was, of course, the actual 
father of all the Babylonian gods; and, therefore, in that character he was afterwards universally 
regarded. * 

* Phaethon, though the child of the sun, is also called the Father of the gods. 
(LACTANTIUS, De Falsa Religione) In Egypt, too, Vulcan was the Father of the 

As the Father of the gods, he was, as we have seen, called Kronos; and every one knows that the 
classical story of Kronos was just this, that, 'he devoured his sons as soon as they were born." 
Such is the analogy between type and antitype. This legend has a further and deeper meaning; 
but, as applied to Nimrod, or "The Horned One," it just refers to the fact, that, as the 
representative of Moloch or Baal, infants were the most acceptable offerings at his altar. We 
have ample and melancholy evidence on this subject from the records of antiquity. "The 
Phenicians," says Eusebius, "every year sacrificed their beloved and only-begotten children to 
Kronos or Saturn, and the Rhodians also often did the same." Diodorus Siculus states that the 
Carthaginians, on one occasion, when besieged by the Sicilians, and sore pressed, in order to 
rectify, as they supposed, their error in having somewhat departed from the ancient custom of 
Carthage, in this respect, hastily "chose out two hundred of the noblest of their children, and 
publicly sacrificed them" to this god. There is reason to believe that the same practice obtained in 
our own land in the times of the Druids. We know that they offered human sacrifices to their 
bloody gods. We have evidence that they made "their children pass through the fire to Moloch," 
and that makes it highly probable that they also offered them in sacrifice; for, from Jeremiah 


32:35, compared with Jeremiah 19:5, we find that these two things were parts of one and the 
same system. The god whom the Druids worshipped was Baal, as the blazing Baal- fires show, 
and the last-cited passage proves that children were offered in sacrifice to Baal. When "the fruit 
of the body" was thus offered, it was "for the sin of the soul." And it was a principle of the 
Mosaic law, a principle no doubt derived from the patriarchal faith, that the priest must partake 
of whatever was offered as a sin-offering (Num 18:9,10). Hence, the priests of Nimrod or Baal 
were necessarily required to eat of the human sacrifices; and thus it has come to pass that 
"Cahna-Bal," * the "Priest of Baal," is the established word in our own tongue for a devourer of 
human flesh. ** 

* The word Cahna is the emphatic form of Cahn. Cahn is "a priest," Cahna is "the 

** From the historian Castor (in Armenian translation of EUSEBIUS) we learn 
that it was under Bel, or Belus, that is Baal, that the Cyclops lived; and the 
Scholiast on Aeschylus states that these Cyclops were the brethren of Kronos, 
who was also Bel or Bal, as we have elsewhere seen. The eye in their forehead 
shows that originally this name was a name of the great god; for that eye in India 
and Greece is found the characteristic of the supreme divinity. The Cyclops, then, 
had been representatives of that God--in other words, priests, and priests of Bel or 
Bal. Now, we find that the Cyclops were well-known as cannibals, Referre ritus 
Cyclopum, "to bring back the rites of the Cyclops," meaning to revive the practice 
of eating human flesh. (OVID, Metam.) 

Now, the ancient traditions relate that the apostates who joined in the rebellion of Nimrod made 
war upon the faithful among the sons of Noah. Power and numbers were on the side of the fire- 
worshippers. But on the side of Shem and the faithful was the mighty power of God's Spirit. 
Therefore many were convinced of their sin, arrested in their evil career; and victory, as we have 
already seen, declared for the saints. The power of Nimrod came to an end, * and with that, for a 
time, the worship of the sun, and the fiery serpent associated with it. 

* The wars of the giants against heaven, referred to in ancient heathen writers, 
had primary reference to this war against the saints; for men cannot make war 
upon God except by attacking the people of God. The ancient writer Eupolemus, 
as quoted by Eusebius (Praeparatio Evang.), states, that the builders of the tower 
of Babel were these giants; which statement amounts nearly to the same thing as 
the conclusion to which we have already come, for we have seen that the "mighty 
ones" of Nimrod were "the giants" of antiquity. Epiphanius records that Nimrod 
was a ringleader among these giants, and that "conspiracy, sedition, and tyranny 
were carried on under him." From the very necessity of the case, the faithful must 
have suffered most, as being most opposed to his ambitious and sacrilegious 
schemes. That Nimrod's reign erminated in some very signal catastrophe, we 
have seen abundant reason already to conclude. The following statement of 
Syncellus confirms the conclusions to which we have already come as to the 
nature of that catastrophe; referring to the arresting of the tower- building scheme, 
Syncellus ((Jhronographia) proceeds thus: "But Nimrod would still obstinately 
stay (when most of the other tower- builders were dispersed), and reside upon the 
spot; nor could he be withdrawn from the tower, still having the command over 
no contemptible body of men. Upon this, we are informed, that the tower, being 


beat upon by violent winds, gave way, and by the just judgment of God, crushed 
him to pieces." Though this could not be literally true, for the tower stood for 
many ages, yet there is a considerable amount of tradition to the effect that the 
tower in which Nimrod gloried was overthrown by wind, which gives reason to 
suspect that this story, when properly understood, had a real meaning in it. Take it 
figuratively, and remembering that the same word which signifies the wind 
signifies also the Spirit of God, it becomes highly probable that the meaning is, 
that his lofty and ambitious scheme, by which, in Scriptural language, he was 
seeking to "mount up to heaven," and "set his nest among the stars," was 
overthrown for a time by the Spirit of God, as we have already concluded, and 
that, in that overthrow he himself perished. 

The case was exactly as stated here in regard to the antitype (Rev 12:9): "The great dragon," or 
fiery serpent, was "cast out of heaven to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him"; that is, 
the Head of the fire-worship, and all his associates and underlings, were cast down from the 
power and glory to which they had been raised. Then was the time when the whole gods of the 
classic Pantheon of Greece were fain to flee and hide themselves from the wrath of their 
adversaries. Then it was, that, in India, Indra, the king of the gods, Surya, the god of the sun, 
Agni, the god of fire, and all the rabble rout of the Hindu Olympus, were driven from heaven, 
wandered over the earth, or hid themselves, in forests, disconsolate, and ready to "perish of 
hunger." Then it was that Phaethon, while driving the chariot of the sun, when on the point of 
setting the world on fire, was smitten by the Supreme God, and cast headlong to the earth, while 
his sisters, the daughters of the sun, inconsolably lamented him, as, "the women wept for 
Tammuz." Then it was, as the reader must be prepared to see, that Vulcan, or Molk-Gheber, the 
classic "god of fire," was so ignominiously hurled down from heaven, as he himself relates in 
Homer, speaking of the wrath of the King of Heaven, which in this instance must mean God 
Most High:- 

"I felt his matchless might, 

Hurled headlong downwards from the ethereal height; 

Tossed all the day in rapid circles round, 

Nor, till the sun descended, touched the ground. 

Breathless I fell, in giddy motion lost. 
The Sinthians raised me on the Lemnian coast." 

The lines, in which Milton refers to this same downfall, though he gives it another application, 
still more beautifully describe the greatness of the overthrow :— 

"In Ausonian land 

Men called him Mulciber; and how he fell 

From heaven, they fabled. Thrown by angry Jove 

Sheer o'er the crystal battlements; from morn 

To noon he fell, from noon to dewy eve, 

A summer's day; and, with the setting sun, 

Dropped from the zenith, like a falling star. 

On Lemnos, the Aegean isle." 

Paradise Lost 


These words very strikingly show the tremendous fall of Mok-Gheber, or Nimrod, "the Mighty 
King," when "suddenly he was cast down from the height of his power, and was deprived at once 
of his kingdom and his life." * 

* The Greek poets speak of two downfalls of Vulcan. In the one case he was cast 
down by Jupiter, in the other by Juno. When Jupiter cast him down, it was for 
rebellion; when Juno did so, one of the reasons specially singled out for doing so 
was his "malformation," that is, his ugliness. (HOMER'S Hymn to Apollo) How 
exactly does this agree with the story of Nimrod: First he was personally cast 
down, when, by Divine authority, he was slain. Then he was cast down, in effigy, 
by Juno, when his image was degraded from the arms of the Queen of Heaven, to 
make way for the fairer child. 

Now, to this overthrow there is very manifest allusion in the prophetic apostrophe of Isaiah to the 
king of Babylon, exulting over his approaching downfall: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O 
Lucifer, son of the morning" ! The Babylonian king pretended to be a representative of Nimrod or 
Phaethon; and the prophet, in these words, informs him, that, as certainly as the god in whom he 
gloried had been cast down from his high estate, so certainly should he. In the classic story, 
Phaethon is said to have been consumed with lightning (and, as we shall see by-and-by, 
Aesculapius also died the same death); but the lightning is a mere metaphor for the wrath of God, 
under which his life and his kingdom had come to an end. When the history is examined, and the 
figure stripped off, it turns out, as we have already seen, that he was judicially slain with the 
sword. * 

* Though Orpheus was commonly represented as having been torn in pieces, he 
too was fabled to have been killed by lightning. (PAUSANIAS, Boeotica) When 
Zoroaster died, he also is said in the myth to have perished by lightning 
(SUIDAS); and therefore, in accordance with that myth, he is represented as 
charging his countrymen to preserve not his body, but his "ashes." The death by 
lightning, however, is evidently a mere figure. 

Such is the language of the prophecy, and so exactly does it correspond with the character, and 
deeds, and fate of the ancient type. How does it suit the antitype? Could the power of Pagan 
Imperial Rome- -that power that first persecuted the Church of Christ, that stood by its soldiers 
around the tomb of the Son of God Himself, to devour Him, if it had been possible, when He 
should be brought forth, as the first-begotten from the dead, * to rale all nations --be represented 
by a "Fiery Serpent"? 

* The birth of the Man-child, as given above, is different from that usually given: 
but let the reader consider if the view which I have taken does not meet all the 
requirements of the case. I think there will be but few who will assent to the 
opinion of Mr. Elliot, which in substance amounts to this, that the Man-child was 
Constantine the Great, and that when Christianity, in his person sat down on the 
throne of Imperial Rome, that was the fulfilment of the saying, that the child 
brought forth by the woman, amid such pangs of travail, was "caught up to God 
and His throne." When Constantine came to the empire, the Church indeed, as 
foretold in Daniel 11:34, "was holpen with a little help"; but that was all. The 
Christianity of Constantine was but of a very doubtful kind, the Pagans seeing 
nothing in it to hinder but that when he died, he should be enrolled among their 


gods. (EUTROPIUS) But even though it had been better, the description of the 
woman's child is far too high for Constantine, or any Christian emperor that 
succeeded him on the imperial throne. "The Man-child, born to rule all nations 
with a rod of iron," is unequivocally Christ (see Psalms 2:9; Rev 19:15). True 
believers, as one with Him in a subordinate sense, share in that honour (Rev 
2:27); but to Christ abne, properly, does that prerogative belong; and I think it 
must be evident that it is His birth that is here referred to. But those who have 
contended for this view have done injustice to their cause by representing this 
passage as referring to His literal birth in Bethlehem. When Christ was born in 
Bethlehem, no doubt Herod endeavoured to cut Him off, and Herod was a subject 
of the Roman Empire. But it was not from any respect to Caesar that he did so, 
but simply from fear of danger to his own dignity as King of Judea. So little did 
Caesar sympathise with the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem, that it is 
recorded that Augustus, on hearing of it, remarked that it was "better to be 
Herod's hog than to be his child." (MACROBIUS, Saturnalia) Then, even if it 
were admitted that Herod's bloody attempt to cut off the infant Saviour was 
symbolised by the Roman dragon, "standing ready to devour the child as soon as 
it should be born," where was there anything that could correspond to the 
statement that the child, to save it from that dragon, "was caught up to God and 
His Throne"? The flight of Joseph and Mary with the Child into Egypt could 
never answer to such language. Moreover, it is worthy of special note, that when 
the Lord Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He wis born, in a very important sense 
only as "King of the Jews." "Where is He that is born King of the Jews?" was the 
inquiry of the wise men that came from the East to seek Him. All His life long, 
He appeared in no other character; and when He died, the inscription on His cross 
ran in these terms: "This is the King of the Jews." Now, this was no accidental 
thing. Paul tells us (Rom 15:8) that "Jesus Christ was a minister of the 
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers." 
Our Lord Himself plainly declared the same thing. "I am not sent," said He to the 
Syrophoenician woman, "save to the lost sheep of the house of Israel"; and, in 
sending out His disciples during His personal ministry, this was the charge which 
He gave them: "Go not in the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the 
Samaritans enter ye not." It was only when He was "begotten from the dead," and 
"declared to be the Son of God with power," by His victory over the grave, that 
He was revealed as "the Man-child, born to rule all nations." Then said He to His 
disciples, when He had risen, and was about to ascend on high: "All power is 
given unto Me in heaven and in earth: go ye therefore, and teach a //nations." To 
this glorious "birth" from the tomb, and to the birth-pangs of His Church that 
preceded it, our Lord Himself made distinct allusion on the night before He was 
betrayed (John 16:20-22). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, That ye shall weep and 
lament, but the world shall rejoice; and ye shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow 
shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her 
hour is come; but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no 
more the anguish, for joy that a MAN is born into the world. And ye now 
therefore have sorrow; but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice." 
Here the grief of the apostles, and, of course, all the true Church that sympathised 


with them during the hour and power of darkness, is compared to the pangs of a 
travailing woman; and their joy, when the Saviour should see them again after His 
resurrection, to the joy of a mother when safely delivered of a Man-child. Can 
there be a doubt, then, what the symbol before us means, when the woman is 
represented as travailing in pain to be delivered of a "Man-child, that was to rule 
all nations," and when it is said that that 'Man-child was caught up to God and 
His Throne"? 

Nothing could more lucidly show it forth. Among the lords many, and the gods many, 
worshipped in the imperial city, the two grand objects of worship were the "Eternal Fire," kept 
perpetually burning in the temple of Vesta, and the sacred Epidaurian Serpent. In Pagan Rome, 
this fire-worship and serpent-worship were sometimes separate, sometimes conjoined; but both 
occupied a pre-eminent place in Roman esteem. The fire of Vesta was regarded as one of the 
grand safeguards of the empire. It was pretended to have been brought from Troy by Aeneas, 
who had it confided to his care by the shade of Hector, and was kept with the most jealous care 
by the Vestal virgins, who, for their charge of it, were honoured with the highest honours. The 
temple where it was kept, says Augustine, "was the most sacred and most reverenced of all the 
temples of Rome." The fire that was so jealously guarded in that temple, and on which so much 
was believed to depend, was regarded in the very same light as by the old Babylonian fire- 
worshippers. It was looked upon as the purifier, and in April every year, at the Palilia, or feast of 
Pales, both men and cattle, for this purpose, were made to pass through the fire. The Epidaurian 
snake, that the Romans worshipped along with the fire, was looked on as the divine 
representation of Aesculapius, the child of the Sun. Aesculapius, whom that sacred snake 
represented, was evidently, just another name for the great Babylonian god. His fate was exactly 
the same as that of Phaethon. He was said to have been smitten with lightning for raising the 
dead. It is evident that this could never have been the case in a physical sense, nor could it easily 
have been believed to be so. But view it in a spiritual sense, and then the statement is just this, 
that he was believed to raise men who were dead in trespasses and sins to newness of life. Now, 
this was exactly what Phaethon was pretending to do, when he was smitten for setting the world 
on fire. In the Babylonian system there was a symbolical death, that all the initiated had to pass 
through, before they got the new life which was implied in regeneration, and that just to declare 
that they had passed from death unto life. As the passing through the fire was both a purgation 
from sin and the means of regeneration, so it was also for raising the dead that Phaethon was 
smitten. Then, as Aesculapius was the child of the Sun, so was Phaethon. * 

* The birth of Aesculapius in the myth was just the same as that of Bacchus. His 
mother was consumed by lightning, and the infant was rescued from the lightning 
that consumed her, as Bacchus was snatched from the flames that burnt up his 

To symbolise this relationship, the head of the image of Aesculapius was generally encircled 
with rays. The Pope thus encircles the heads of the pretended images of Christ; but the real 
source of these irradiations is patent to all acquainted either with the literature or the art of Rome. 
Thus speaks Virgil of Latinus:-- 

"And now, in pomp, the peaceful kings appear, 

Four steeds the chariot of Latinus bear, 

Twelve golden beams around his temples play, 

To mark his lineage from the god of day." 


Fig. 53: Roman Fire- Worship and Serpent-Worship Combined 

Pompeii, vol. ii. p. 105. 

The "golden beams" around the head of Aesculapius were intended to mark the same, to point 
him out as the child of the Sun, or the Sun incarnate. The "golden beams" around the heads of 
pictures and images called by the name of Christ, were intended to show the Pagans that they 
might safely worship them, as the images of their well-known divinities, though called by a 
different name. Now Aesculapius, in a time of deadly pestilence, had been invited from 
Epidaurus to Rome. The god, under the form of a larger serpent, entered the ship that was sent to 
convey him to Rome, and having safely arrived in the Tiber, was solemnly inaugurated as the 
guardian god of the Romans. From that time forth, in private as well as in public, the worship of 
the Epidaurian snake, the serpent that represented the Sun-divinity incarnate, in other words, the 
"Serpent of Fire," became nearly universal. In almost every house the sacred serpent, which was 
a harmless sort, was to be found. "These serpents nestled about the domestic altars," says the 
author of Pompeii, "and came out, like dogs or cats, to be patted by the visitors, and beg for 
something to eat. Nay, at table, if we may build upon insulated passages, they crept about the 
cups of the guests, and, in hot weather, ladies would use them as live boas, and twist them round 
their necks for the sake of coolness. ..These sacred animals made war on the rats and mice, and 
thus kept down one species of vermin; but as they bore a charmed life, and no one laid violent 
hands on them, they multiplied so fast, that, like the monkeys of Benares, they became an 
intolerable nuisance. The frequent fires at Rome were the only things that kept them under." The 
reader will find, in the accompanying woodcut (Fig. 53) , a representation of Roman fire-worship 
and serpent -worship at once separate and conjoined. The reason of the double representation of 
the god I cannot here enter into, but it must be evident, from the words of Virgil already quoted, 
that the figures having their heads encircled with rays, represent the fire- god, or Sun-divinity; 
and what is worthy of special note is, that these fire- gods are black, * the colour thereby 


identifying them with the Ethiopian or black Phaethon; while, as the author of Pompeii himself 
admits, these same black fire- gods are represented by two huge serpents. 

* "All the faces in his (MAZOIS') engraving are quite black." (Pompeii) In India, 
the infant Crishna (emphatically the black god), in the arms of the goddess 
Devaki, is represented with the woolly hair and marked features of the Negro or 
African race. (See Fig. 54) 

Fig. 54: Hindu Goddess Devaki, with the Infant Crishna at her breast 

From MOOR, plate 59. 

Now, if this worship of the sacred serpent of the Sun, the great fire-god, was so universal in 
Rome, what symbol could more graphically portray the idolatrous power of Pagan Imperial 
Rome than the "Great Fiery Serpent"? No doubt it was to set forth this very thing that the 
Imperial standard itself- -the standard of the Pagan Emperor of Rome, as Pontifex Maximus, 
Head of the great system of fire-worship and serpent-worship--was a serpent elevated on a lofty 
pole, and so coloured, as to exhibit it as a recognised symbol of fire-worship. 15 


The Roman Imperial Standard of the Dragon a Symbol of Fire- worship 

The passage of Ammianus Marcellinus, that speaks of that standard, calls it "purpureum signum draconis." On this 
may be raised the question, Has the epithet purpureum, as describing the colour of the dragon, any reference to fire? 
The following extract from Salverte may cast some light upon it: "The dragon figured among the military ensigns of 
the Assyrians. Cyrus caused it to be adopted by the Persians and Medes. Under the Roman emperors, and under the 
emperors of Byzantium, each cohort or centuria bore for an ensign a dragon." There is no doubt that the dragon or 
serpent standard of the Assyrians and Persians had reference to fire-worship, the worship of fire and the serpent 
being mixed up together in both these countries. As the Romans, therefore, borrowed these standards evidently from 
these sources, it is to be presumed that they viewed them in the very same light as those from whom they borrowed 
them, especially as that light was so exactly in harmony with their own system of fire-worship. The epithet 


As Christianity spread in the Roman Empire, the powers of light and darkness came into 
collision (Rev 12:7,8): "Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought 
and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the 
great dragon was cast out;... he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him." 
The "great serpent of fire" was cast out, when, by the decree of Gratian, Paganism throughout the 
Roman empire was abolished- -when the fires of Vesta were extinguished, and the revenues of 
the Vestal virgins were confiscated—when the Roman Emperor (who though for more than a 
century and a half a professor of Christianity, had been "Pontifex Maximus," the very head of the 
idolatry of Rome, and as such, on high occasions, appearing invested with all the idolatrous 
insignia of Paganism), through force of conscience abolished his own office. While Nimrod was 
personally and literally slain by the sword, it was through the sword of the Spirit that Shem 
overcame the system of fire-worship, and so bowed the hearts of men, as to cause it for a time to 
be utterly extinguished. In like manner did the Dragon of fire, in the Roman Empire, receive a 
deadly wound from a sword, and that the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God. There is 
thus far an exact analogy between the type and the antitype. 

But not only is there this analogy. It turns out, when the records of history are searched to the 
bottom, that when the head of the Pagan idolatry of Rome was slain with the sword by the 
extinction of the office of Pontifex Maximus, the last Roman Pontifex Maximus was the 
then existing. To make this clear, a brief glance at the Roman history is necessary. In common 
with all the earth, Rome at a very early prehistoric period, had drunk deep of Babylon's "golden 
cup." But above and beyond all other nations, it had had a connection with the idolatry of 
Babylon that put it in a position peculiar and alone. Long before the days of Romulus, a 
representative of the Babylonian Messiah, called by his name, had fixed his temple as a god, and 
his palace as a king, on one of those very heights which came to be included within the walls of 
that city which Remus and his brother were destined to found. On the Capitoline hill, so famed in 
after-days as the great high place of Roman worship, Saturnia, or the city of Saturn, the great 
Chaldean god, had in the days of dim and distant antiquity been erected. Some revolution had 

purpureus or "purple" does not indeed naturally convey the idea of fire-colour to us. But it does convey the idea of 
red; and red in one shade or another, among idolatrous nations, has almost with one consent been used to represent 
fire. The Egyptians (BUNSEN), the Hindoos (MOOR'S Pantheon, "Brahma"), the Assyrians (LA YARD'S Nineveh), 
all represented/zVe by red. The Persians evidently did the same, for when Quintus Curtius describes the Magi as 
following "the sacred and eternal fire," he describes the 365 youths, who formed the train of these Magi, as clad in 
"scarlet garments," the colour of these garments, no doubt, having reference to the fire whose ministers they were. 
Puniceus is equivalent to purpureus, for it was in Phenicia [six] that the purpura, or purple-fish, was originally 
found. The colour derived from that purple-fish was scarlet, and it is the very name of that Phoenician purple -fish, 
"arguna," that is used in Daniel 5:16 and 19, where it is said that he that should interpret the handwriting on the wall 
should "be clothed in scarlet." The Tyrians had the art of making true purples, as well as scarlet; and there seems no 
doubt that purpureus is frequently used in the ordinary sense attached to our word purple. But the original meaning 
of the epithet is scarlet; and as bright scarlet colour is a natural colour to represent/ire, so we have reason to believe 
that that colour, when used for robes of state among the Tyrians, had special reference to fire; for the Tyrian 
Hercules, who was regarded as the inventor of purple (BRYANT), was regarded as "King of Fire," (NONNUS, 
Dionysiaca). Now, when we find that the purpura of Tyre produced the scarlet colour which naturally represented 
fire, and that puniceus, which is equivalent to purpureus, is evidently used for scarlet, there is nothing that forbids us 
to understand purpureus in the same sense here, but rather requires it. But even though it were admitted that the 
tinge was deeper, and purpureus meant the true purple, as red, of which it is a shade, is the established colour of fire, 
and as the serpent was the universally acknowledged symbol of fire-worship, the probability is strong that the use of 
a red dragon as the Imperial standard of Rome was designed as an emblem of that system of fire -worship on which 
the safety of the empire was believed so vitally to hinge. 


then taken place--the graven images of Babylon had been abolished- -the erecting of any idol had 
been sternly prohibited, * and when the twin founders of the now world- renowned city reared its 
humble walls, the city and the palace of their Babylonian predecessor had long lain in ruins. 

* PLUTARCH (in Hist. Numoe) states, that Numa forbade the making of images, 
and that for 170 years after the founding of Rome, no images were allowed in the 
Roman temples. 

The ruined state of this sacred city, even in the remote age of Evander, is alluded to by Virgil. 
Referring to the time when Aeneas is said to have visited that ancient Italian king, thus he 

"Then saw two heaps of ruins; once they stood 

Two stately towns on either side the flood; 

Saturnia and Janicula's remains; 

And either place the founder's name retains." 

The deadly wound, however, thus given to the Chaldean system, was destined to be healed. A 
colony of Etruscans, earnestly attached to the Chaldean idolatry, had migrated, some say from 
Asia Minor, others from Greece, and settled in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. They 
were ultimately incorporated in the Roman state, but long before this political union took place 
they exercised the most powerful influence on the religion of the Romans. From the very first 
their skill in augury, soothsaying, and all science, real or pretended, that the augurs or 
soothsayers monopolised, made the Romans look up to them with respect. It is admitted on all 
hands that the Romans derived their knowledge of augury, which occupied so prominent a place 
in every public transaction in which they engaged, chiefly from the Tuscans, that is, the people 
of Etruria, and at first none but natives of that country were permitted to exercise the office of a 
Haruspex, which had respect to all the rites essentially involved in sacrifice. Wars and disputes 
arose between Rome and the Etruscans; but still the highest of the noble youths of Rome were 
sent to Etruria to be instructed in the sacred science which flourished there. The consequence 
was, that under the influence of men whose minds were moulded by those who clung to the 
ancient idol- worship, the Romans were brought back again to much of that idolatry which they 
had formerly repudiated and cast off. Though Numa, therefore, in setting up his religious system, 
so far deferred to the prevailing feeling of his day and forbade image- worship, yet in 
consequence of the alliance subsisting between Rome and Etruria in sacred things, matters were 
put in train for the ultimate subversion of that prohibition. The college of Pontiffs, of which he 
laid the foundation, in process of time came to be substantially an Etruscan college, and the 
Sovereign Pontiff that presided over that college, and that controlled all the public and private 
religious rites of the Roman people in all essential respects, became in spirit and in practice an 
Etruscan Pontiff. 

Still the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome, even after the Etruscan idolatry was absorbed into the 
Roman system, was only an offshoot from the grand original Babylonian system. He was a 
devoted worshipper of the Babylonian god; but he was not the legitimate representative of that 
God. The true legitimate Babylonian Pontiff had his seat beyond the bounds of the Roman 
empire. That seat, after the death of Belshazzar, and the expulsion of the Chaldean priesthood 
from Babylon by the Medo- Persian kings, was at Pergamos, where afterwards was one of the 
seven churches of Asia. * There, in consequence, for many centuries was "Satan's seat" (Rev 
2:13). There, under favour of the deified ** kings of Pergamos, was his favourite abode, there 


was the worship of Aesculapius, under the form of the serpent, celebrated with frantic orgies and 
excesses, that elsewhere were kept under some measure of restraint. 

* BARKER and AINSWORTH'S Lares and Penates ofCilicia. Barker says, "The 
defeated Chaldeans fled to Asia Minor, and fixed their central college at 
Pergamos." Phrygia, that was so remarkable for the worship of Cybele and Atys, 
formed part of the Kingdom of Pergamos. Mysia also was another, and the 
Mysians, in the Paschal Chronicle, are said to be descended from Nimrod. The 
words are, "Nebrod, the huntsman and giant--from whence came the Mysians." 
Lydia, also, from which Livy and Herodotus say the Etrurians came, formed part 
of the same kingdom. For the fact that Mysia, Lydia, and Phrygia were constituent 
parts of the kingdom of Pergamos, see SMITH'S Classical Dictionary. 

** The kings of Pergamos, in whose dominions the Chaldean Magi found an 
asylum, were evidently by them, and by the general voice of Paganism that 
sympathised with them, put into the vacant place which Belshazzar and his 
predecessors had occupied. They were hailed as the representatives of the old 
Babylonian god. This is evident from the statements of Pausanias. First, he quotes 
the following words from the oracle of a prophetess called Phaennis, in reference 
to the Gauls: "But divinity will still more seriously afflict those that dwell near the 
sea. However, in a short time after, Jupiter will send them a defender, the beloved 
son of a Jove -nourished bull, who will bring destruction on all the Gauls." Then 
on this he comments as follows: "Phaennis, in this oracle, means by the son of a 
bull, Attalus, king of Pergamos, whom the oracle of Apollo called Taurokeron," 
or bull- horned. This title given by the Delphian god, proves that Attalus, in whose 
dominions the Magi had their seat, had been set up and recognised in the very 
character of Bacchus, the Head of the Magi. Thus the vacant seat of Belshazzar 
was filled, and the broken chain of the Chaldean succession renewed. 

At first, the Roman Pontiff had no immediate connection with Pergamos and the hierarchy there; 
yet, in course of time, the Pontificate of Rome and the Pontificate of Pergamos came to be 
identified. Pergamos itself became part and parcel of the Roman empire, when Attalus III, the 
last of its kings, at his death, left by will all his dominions to the Roman people, BC 133. For 
some time after the kingdom of Pergamos was merged in the Roman dominions, there was no 
one who could set himself openly and advisedly to lay claim to all the dignity inherent in the old 
title of the kings of Pergamos. The original powers even of the Roman Pontiffs seem to have 
been by that time abridged, but when Julius Caesar, who had previously been elected Pontifex 
Maximus, became also, as Emperor, the supreme civil ruler of the Romans, then, as head of the 
Roman state, and head of the Roman religion, all the powers and functions of the true legitimate 
Babylonian Pontiff were supremely vested in him, and he found himself in a position to assert 
these powers. Then he seems to have laid claim to the divine dignity of Attalus, as well as the 
kingdom that Attalus had bequeathed to the Romans, as centering in himself; for his well-known 
watchword, "Venus Genetrix," which meant that Venus was the mother of the Julian race, 
appears to have been intended to make him "The Son" of the great goddess, even as the "Bull- 
horned" Attalus had been regarded. * 

* The deification of the emperors that continued in succession from the days of 
Divus Julius, or the "Deified Julius," can be traced to no cause so likely as their 
representing the "Bull- horned" Attalus both as Pontiff and Sovereign. 


Then, on certain occasions, in the exercise of his high pontifical office, he appeared of course in 
all the pomp of the Babylonian costume, as Belshazzar himself might have done, in robes of 
scarlet, with the crosier of Nimrod in his hand, wearing the mitre of Dagon and bearing the keys 
of Janus and Cybele. * 

* That the key was one of the symbols used in the Mysteries, the reader will find 
on consulting TAYLOR'S Note on Orphic Hymn to Pluto, where that divinity is 
spoken of as "keeper of the keys." Now the Pontifex, as "Hierophant," was 
"arrayed in the habit and adorned with the symbols of the great Creator of the 
world, of whom in these Mysteries he was supposed to be the substitute." 
(MAURICE'S Antiquities) The Primeval or Creative god was mystically 
represented as Androgyne, as combining in his own person both sexes (Ibid.), 
being therefore both Janus and Cybele at the same time. In opening up the 
Mysteries, therefore, of this mysterious divinity, it was natural that the Pontifex 
should bear the key of both these divinities. Janus himself, however, as well as 
Pluto, was often represented with more than one key. 

Thus did matter continue, as already stated, even under so-called Christian emperors; who, as a 
salve to their consciences, appointed a heathen as their substitute in the performance of the more 
directly idolatrous functions of the pontificate (that substitute, however, acting in their name and 
by their authority), until the reign of Gratian, who, as shown by Gibbon, was the first that refused 
to be arrayed in the idolatrous pontifical attire, or to act as Pontifex. Now, from all this it is 
evident that, when Paganism in the Roman empire was abolished, when the office of Pontifex 
Maximus was suppressed, and all the dignitaries of paganism were cast down from their seats of 
influence and of power, which they had still been allowed in some measure to retain, that was 
not merely the casting down of the Fiery Dragon of Rome, but the casting down of the Fiery 
Dragon of Babylon. It was just the enacting over again, in a symbolical sense, upon the true and 
sole legitimate successor of Nimrod, what had taken place upon himself, when the greatness of 
his downfall gave rise to the exclamation, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of 
the morning"! 

Section II 
The Beast from the Sea 

The next great enemy introduced to our notice is the Beast from the Sea (Rev 13:1): "I stood," 
says John, "upon the sand of the sea- shore, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea." The seven 
heads and ten horns on this beast, as on the great dragon, show that this power is essentially the 
same beast, but that it has undergone a circumstantial change. In the old Babylonian system, after 
the worship of the god of fire, there speedily followed the worship of the god of water or the sea. 
As the world formerly was in danger of being burnt up, so now it was in equal danger of being 
drowned. In the Mexican story it is said to have actually been so. First, say they, it was destroyed 
by fire, and then it was destroyed by water. The Druidic mythology gives the same account; for 
the Bards affirm that the dreadful tempest of fire that split the earth asunder, was rapidly 
succeeded by the bursting of the Lake Llion, when the waters of the abyss poured forth and 
"overwhelmed the whole world." In Greece we meet with the very same story. Diodorus Siculus 
tells us that, in former times, "a monster called Aegides, who vomited flames, appeared in 
Phrygia; hence spreading along Mount Taurus, the conflagration burnt down all the woods as far 


as India; then, with a retrograde course, swept the forests of Mount Lebanon, and extended as far 
as Egypt and Africa; at last a stop was put to it by Minerva. The Phrygians remembered well this 
CONFLAGRATION and the FLOOD which FOLLOWED it." Ovid, too, has a clear allusion to 
the same fact of the fire-worship being speedily followed by the worship of water, in his fable of 
the transformation of Cycnus. He represents King Cycnus, an attached friend of Phaethon, and 
consequently of fire-worship, as, after his friend's death, hating the fire, and taking to the 
contrary element that of water, through fear, and so being transformed into a swan. In India, the 
great deluge, which occupies so conspicuous a place in its mythology, evidently has the same 
symbolical meaning, although the story of Noah is mixed up with it; for it was during that deluge 
that "the lost Vedas," or sacred books, were recovered, by means of the great god, under the form 
of a FISH. The "loss of the Vedas" had evidently taken place at that very time of terrible disaster 
to the gods, when, according to the Purans, a great enemy of these gods, called Durgu, 
"abolished all religious ceremonies, the Brahmins, through fear, forsook the reading of the 
Veda, lost its energy, and the terrified stars retired from sight"; in other words, when 
idolatry, fire-worship, and the worship of the host of heaven had been suppressed. When we turn 
to Babylon itself, we find there also substantially the same account. In Berosus, the deluge is 
represented as coming after the time of Alorus, or the "god of fire," that is, Nimrod, which shows 
that there, too, this deluge was symbolical. Now, out of this deluge emerged Dagon, the fish-god, 
or god of the sea. The origin of the worship of Dagon, as shown by Berosus, was founded upon a 
legend, that, at a remote period of the past, when men were sunk in barbarism, there came up a 
BEAST CALLED OANNES FROM THE RED SEA, or Persian Gulf- half- man, half- fish- that 
civilised the Babylonians, taught them arts and sciences, and instructed them in politics and 
religion. The worship of Dagon was introduced by the very parties— Nimrod, of course, excepted- 
-who had previously seduced the world into the worship of fire. In the secret Mysteries that were 
then set up, while in the first instance, no doubt, professing the greatest antipathy to the 
prescribed worship of fire, they sought to regain their influence and power by scenic 
representations of the awful scenes of the Flood, in which Noah was introduced under the name 
of Dagon, or the Fish-god-- scenes in which the whole family of man, both from the nature of the 
event and their common connectio n with the second father of the human race, could not fail to 
feel a deep interest. The concocters of these Mysteries saw that if they could only bring men 
back again to idolatry in any shape, they could soon work that idolatry so as substantially to re- 
establish the very system that had been put down. Thus it was, that, as soon as the way was 
prepared for it, Tammuz was introduced as one who had allowed himself to be slain for the good 
of mankind. A distinction was made between good serpents and bad serpents, one kind being 
represented as the serpent of Agathodaemon, or the good divinity, another as the serpent of 
Cacodaemon, or the evil one. * 

* WILKINSON. In Egypt, the Uraeus, or the Cerastes, was the good serpent, the 
Apophis the evil one. 

It was easy, then, to lead men on by degrees to believe that, in spite of all appearances to the 
contrary, Tammuz, instead of being the patron of serpent -worship in any evil sense, was in 
reality the grand enemy of the Apophis, or great malignant serpent that envied the happiness of 
mankind, and that in fact he was the very seed of the woman who was destined to bruise the 
serpent's head. By means of the metempsychosis, it was just as easy to identify Nimrod and 
Noah, and to make it appear that the great patriarch, in the person of this his favoured 
descendant, had graciously condescended to become incarnate anew, as Dagon, that he might 
bring mankind back again to the blessings they had lost when Nimrod was slain. Certain it is, 


that Dagon was worshipped in the Chaldean Mysteries, wherever they were established, in a 
character that represented both the one and the other. 

In the previous system, the grand mode of purification had been by fire. Now, it was by water 
that men were to be purified. Then began the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, connected, as 
we have seen, with the passing of Noah through the waters of the Flood. Then began the 
reverence for holy wells, holy lakes, holy rivers, which is to be found wherever these exist on the 
earth; which is not only to be traced among the Parsees, who, along with the worship of fire, 
worship also the Zereparankard, or Caspian Sea, and among the Hindoos, who worship the 
purifying waters of the Ganges, and who count it the grand passport to heaven, to leave their 
dying relatives to be smothered in its stream; but which is seen in full force at this day in Popish 
Ireland, in the universal reverence for holy wells, and the annual pilgrimages to Loch Dergh, to 
wash away sin in its blessed waters; and which manifestly lingers also among ourselves, in the 
popular superstition about witches which shines out in the well-known line of Burns-- 

"A running stream they daurna cross." 

So much for the worship of water. Along with the water- worship, however, the old worship of 
fire was soon incorporated again. In the Mysteries, both modes of purification were conjoined. 
Though water-baptism was held to regenerate, yet purification by fire was still held to be 
indispensable; * and, long ages after baptismal regeneration had been established, the children 
were still made "to pass through the fire to Moloch." This double purification both by fire and 
water was practised in Mexico, among the followers of Wodan. This double purification was also 
commonly practised among the old Pagan Romans; ** and, in course of time, almost everywhere 
throughout the Pagan world, both the fire-worship and serpent- worship of Nimrod, which had 
been put down, was re-established in a new form, with all its old and many additional 
abominations besides. 

* The name Tammuz, as applied to Nimrod or Osiris, was equivalent to Alorus or 
the "god of fire," and seems to have been given to him as the great purifier by fire. 
Tammuz is derived from tarn, "to make perfect," and muz, "fire," and signifies 
"Fire the perfecter," or "the perfecting fire." To this meaning of the name, as well 
as to the character of Nimrod as the Father of the gods, the Zoroastrian verse 
alludes when it says: "All things are the progeny of ONE FIRE. The Father 
perfected all things, and delivered them to the second mind, whom all nations of 
men call the first." (CORY'S Fragments) Here Fire is declared to be the Father of 
all; for all things are said to be its progeny, and it is also called the 'perfecter of 
all things." The second mind is evidently the child who displaced Nimrod's image 
as an object of worship; but yet the agency of Nimrod, as the first of the gods, and 
the fire-god, was held indispensable for "perfecting" men. And hence, too, no 
doubt, the necessity of the fire of Purgatory to "perfect" men's souls at last, and to 
purge away all the sins that they have carried with them into the unseen world. 

** OVID, Fasti. It was not a little interesting to me, after being led by strict 
induction from circumstantial evidence to the conclusion that the purgation by fire 
was derived from the fire-worship of Adon or Tammuz, and that by water had 
reference to Noah's Flood, to find an express statement in Ovid, that such was the 
actual belief at Rome in his day. After mentioning, in the passage to which the 
above citation refers, various fanciful reasons for the twofold purgation by fire 


and water, he concludes thus: "For my part, I do not believe them; there are some 
(however) who say that the one is intended to commemorate Phaethon, and the 
other the flood of Deucalion." 

If, however, any one should still think it unlikely that the worship of Noah should 
be mingled in the ancient world with the worship of the Queen of Heaven and her 
son, let him open his eyes to what is taking place in Italy at this hour [in 1856] in 
regard to the worship of that patriarch and the Roman Queen of Heaven. The 
following, kindly sent me by Lord John Scott, as confirmatory of the views 
propounded in these pages, appeared in the Morning Herald, October 26, 1855: 
TURIN. --For several consecutive years the vintage has been almost entirely 
destroyed in Tuscany, in consequence of the prevalent disease. The Archbishop of 
Florence has conceived the idea of arresting this plague by directing prayers to be 
offered, not to God, but to the patriarch Noah; and he has just published a 
collection, containing eight forms of supplication, addressed to this distinguished 
personage of the ancient covenant. 'Most holy patriarch Noah!' is the language of 
one of these prayers, 'who didst employ thyself in thy long career in cultivating 
the vine, and gratifying the human race with that precious beverage, which allays 
the thirst, restores the strength, and enlivens the spirits of us all, deign to regard 
our vines, which, following thine example, we have cultivated hitherto; and, while 
thou beholdest them languishing and blighted by that disastrous visitation, which, 
before the vintage, destroys the fruit (in severe punishment for many blasphemies 
and other enormous sins we have committed), have compassion on us, and, 
prostrate before the lofty throne of God, who has promised to His children the 
fruits of the earth, and an abundance of corn and wine, entreat Him on our behalf; 
promise Him in our name, that, with the aid of Divine grace, we will forsake the 
ways of vice and sin, that we will no longer abuse His sacred gifts, and will 
scrupulously observe His holy law, and that of our holy Mother, the Catholic 
Church,' &c. The collection concludes with a new prayer, addressed to the Virgin 
Mary, who is invoked in these words: 'O immaculate Mary, behold our fields and 
vineyards! and, should it seem to thee that we merit so great a favour, stay, we 
beseech thee, this terrible plague, which, inflicted for our sins, renders our fields 
unfruitful, and deprives our vines of the honours of the vintage,' &c. The work 
contains a vignette, representing the patriarch Noah presiding over the operations 
of the vintage, as well as a notification from the Archbishop, granting an 
indulgence of forty days to all who shall devoutly recite the prayers in question. -- 
Christian Times" In view of such rank Paganism as this, well may the noble Lord 
already referred to remark, that surely here is the world turned backwards, and the 
worship of the old god Bacchus unmistakably restored! 

Now, this god of the sea, when his worship had been firmly re-established, and all formidable 
opposition had been put down, was worshipped also as the great god of war, who, though he had 
died for the good of mankind, now that he had risen again, was absolutely invincible. In memory 
of this new incarnation, the 25th of December, otherwise Christmas Day, was, as we have 
already seen, celebrated in Pagan Rome as "Natalis Solis invicti" "the birth- day of the 
Unconquered Sun." We have equally seen that the very name of the Roman god of war is just the 
name of Nimrod; for Mars and Mavors, the two well-known names of the Roman war- god, are 


evidently just the Roman forms of the Chaldee "Mar" or "Mavor," the Rebel. Thus terrible and 
invincible was Nimrod when he reappeared as Dagon, the beast from the sea. If the reader looks 
at what is said in Revelation 13:3, he will see precisely the same thing: "And I saw one of his 
heads as it were wounded unto death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world 
wondered after the beast. And they worshipped the dragon, which gave power unto the beast, and 
they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with 
him?" Such, in all respects, is the analogy between the language of the prophecy and the ancient 
Babylonian type. 

Do we find, then, anything corresponding to this in the religious history of the Roman empire 
after the fall of the old Paganism of that empire? Exactly in every respect. No sooner was 
Paganism legally abolished, the eternal fire of Vesta extinguished, and the old serpent cast down 
from the seat of power, where so long he had sat secure, than he tried the most vigorous means to 
regain his influence and authority. Finding that persecution of Christianity, as such, in the 
meantime would not do to destroy the church symbolised by the sun-clothed Woman, he made 
another tack (Rev 12:15): "And the serpent cast out of his mouth a flood of water after the 
woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." The symbol here is certainly 
very remarkable. If this was the dragon of fire, it might have been expected that it would have 
been represented, according to popular myths, as vomiting fire after the woman. But it is not so. 
It was a flood of water that he cast out of his mouth. What could this mean? As the water came 
out of the mouth of the dragon--that must mean doctrine, and of course, false doctrine. But is 
there nothing more specific than this? A single glance at the old Babylonian type will show that 
the water cast out of the mouth of the serpent must be the water of baptismal regeneration. Now, 
it was precisely at this time, when the old Paganism was suppressed, that the doctrine of 
regenerating men by baptism, which had been working in the Christian Church before, 
threatened to spread like a deluge over the face of the Roman empire. * 

* From about AD 360, to the time of the Emperor Justinian, about 550, we have 
evidence both of the promulgation of this doctrine, and also of the deep hold it 
came at last to take of professing Christians. 

It was then precisely that our Lord Jesus Christ began to be popularly called Ichthys, that is, "the 
Fish," manifestly to identify him with Dagon. At the end of the fourth century, and from that 
time forward, it was taught, that he who had been washed in the baptismal font was thereby born 
again, and made pure as the virgin snow. 

This flood issued not merely from the mouth of Satan, the old serpent, but from the mouth of him 
who came to be recognised by the Pagans of Rome as the visible head of the old Roman 
Paganism. When the Roman fire-worship was suppressed, we have seen that the office of 
Pontifex Maximus, the head of that Paganism, was abolished. That was "the wounding unto 
death" of the head of the Fiery Dragon. But scarcely had that head received its deadly wound, 
when it began to be healed again. Within a few years after the Pagan title of Pontifex had been 
abolished, it was revived, and that by the very Emperor that had abolished it, and was bestowed, 
with all the Pagan associations clustering around it, upon the Bishop of Rome, who, from that 
time forward, became the grand agent in pouring over professing Christendom, first the ruinous 
doctrine of baptismal regeneration, and then all the other doctrines of Paganism derived from 
ancient Babylon. When this Pagan title was bestowed on the Roman bishop, it was not as a mere 
empty title of honour it was bestowed, but as a title to which formidable power was annexed. To 
the authority of the Bishop of Rome in this new character, as Pontifex, when associated "with 


five or seven other bishops" as his counsellors, bishops, and even metropolitans of foreign 
churches over extensive regions of the West, in Gaul not less than in Italy, were subjected; and 
civil pains were attached to those who refused to submit to his pontifical decisions. Great was the 
danger to the cause of truth and righteousness when such power was, by imperial authority, 
vested in the Roman bishop, and that a bishop so willing to give himself to the propagation of 
false doctrine. Formidable, however, as the danger was, the true Church, the Bride, the Lamb's 
wife (so far as that Church was found within the bounds of the Western Empire), was 
wonderfully protected from it. That Church was for a time saved from the peril, not merely by 
the mountain fastnesses in which many of its devoted members found an asylum, as Jovinian, 
Vigilantius, and the Waldenses, and such- like faithful ones, in the wilderness among the Cottian 
Alps, and other secluded regions of Europe, but also not a little, by a signal interposition of 
Divine Providence in its behalf. That interposition is referred to in these words (Rev 12:16): 
"The earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the flood, which the dragon cast out of his 
mouth." What means the symbol of the "earth's opening its mouth"? In the natural world, when 
the earth opens its mouth, there is an earthquake; and an "earthquake," according to the figurative 
language of the Apocalypse, as all admit, just means a great political convulsion. Now, when we 
examine the history of the period in question, we find that the fact exactly agrees with the 
prefiguration; that soon after the Bishop of Rome because Pontiff, and, as Pontiff, set himself so 
zealously to bring in Paganism into the Church, those political convulsions began in the civil 
empire of Rome, which never ceased till the framework of that empire was broken up, and it was 
shattered to pieces. But for this the spiritual power of the Papacy might have been firmly 
established over all the nations of the West, long before the time it actually was so. It is clear, 
that immediately after Damasus, the Roman bishop, received his pontifical power, the predicted 
"apostacy" (1 Tim 4:3), so far as Rome was concerned, was broadly developed. Then were men 
"forbidden to marry," * and "commanded to abstain from meats." 

* The celibacy of the clergy was enacted by Syricius, Bishop of Rome, AD 385. 

Then, with a factitious doctrine of sin, a factitious holiness also was inculcated, and people were 
led to believe that all baptised persons were necessarily regenerated. Had the Roman Empire of 
the West remained under one civil head, backed by that civil head, the Bishop of Rome might 
very soon have infected all parts of that empire with the Pagan corruption he had evidently given 
himself up to propagate. Considering the cruelty with which Jovinian, and all who opposed the 
Pagan doctrines in regard to marriage and abstinence, were treated by the Pontifex of Rome, 
under favour of the imperial power, it may easily be seen how serious would have been the 
consequences to the cause of truth in the Western Empire had this state of matters been allowed 
to pursue its natural course. But now the great Lord of the Church interfered. The "revolt of the 
Goths," and the sack of Rome by Alaric the Goth in 410, gave that shock to the Roman Empire 
which issued, by 476, in its complete upbreaking and the extinction of the imperial power. 
Although, therefore, in pursuance of the policy previously inaugurated, the Bishop of Rome was 
formally recognised, by an imperial edict in 445, as "Head of all the Churches of the West," all 
bishops being commanded "to hold and observe as a law whatever it should please the Bishop of 
Rome to ordain or decree"; the convulsions of the empire, and the extinction, soon thereafter, of 
the imperial power itself, to a large extent nullified the disastrous effects of this edict. The 
"earth's opening its mouth," then--in other words, the breaking up of the Roman Empire into so 
many independent sovereignties- -was a benefit to true religion, and prevented the flood of error 
and corruption, that had its source in Rome, from flowing as fast and as far as it would otherwise 


have done. When many different wills in the different countries were substituted for the one will 
of the Emperor, on which the Sovereign Pontiff leaned, the influence of that Pontiff was greatly 
neutralised. "Under these circumstances," says Gieseler, referring to the influence of Rome in the 
different kingdoms into which the empire was divided, "under these circumstances, the Popes 
could not directly interfere in ecclesiastical matters; and their communications with the 
established Church of the country depended entirely on the royal pleasure." The Papacy at last 
overcame the effects of the earthquake, and the kingdoms of the West were engulfed in that 
flood of error that came out of the mouth of the dragon. But the overthrow of the imperial power, 
when so zealously propping up the spiritual despotism of Rome, gave the true Church in the 
West a lengthened period of comparative freedom, which otherwise it could not have had. The 
Dark Ages would have come sooner, and the darkness would have been more intense, but for the 
Goths and Vandals, and the political convulsions that attended their irruptions. They were raised 
up to scourge an apostatising community, not to persecute the saints of the Most High, though 
these, too, may have occasionally suffered in the common distress. The hand of Providence may 
be distinctly seen, in that, at so critical a moment, the earth opened its mouth and helped the 

To return, however, to the memorable period when the pontifical title was bestowed on the 
Bishop of Rome. The circumstances in which that Pagan title was bestowed upon Pope Damasus, 
were such as might have been not a little trying to the faith and integrity of a much better man 
than he. Though Paganism was legally abolished in the Western Empire of Rome, yet in the city 
of the Seven Hills it was still rampant, insomuch that Jerome, who knew it well, writing of Rome 
at this very period, calls it "the sink of all superstitions." The consequence was, that, while 
everywhere else throughout the empire the Imperial edict for the abolition of Paganism was 
respected, in Rome itself it was, to a large extent, a dead letter. Symmachus, the prefect of the 
city, and the highest patrician families, as well as the masses of the people, were fanatically 
devoted to the old religion; and, therefore, the Emperor found it necessary, in spite of the law, to 
connive at the idolatry of the Romans. How strong was the hold that Paganism had in the 
Imperial city, even after the fire of Vesta was extinguished, and State support was withdrawn 
from the Vestals, the reader may perceive from the following words of Gibbon: "The image and 
altar of Victory were indeed removed from the Senate- house; but the Emperor yet spared the 
statues of the gods which were exposed to public view; four hundred and twenty- four temples or 
chapels still remained to satisfy the devotion of the people, and in every quarter of Rome the 
delicacy of the Christians was offended by the fumes of idolatrous sacrifice." Thus strong was 
Paganism in Rome, even after State support was withdrawn about 376. But look forward only 
about fifty years, and see what has become of it. The name of Paganism has almost entirely 
disappeared; insomuch that the younger Theodosius, in an edict issued AD 423, uses these 
words: "The Pagans that remain, although now we may believe there are rone." The words of 
Gibbon in reference to this are very striking. While fully admitting that, notwithstanding the 
Imperial laws made against Paganism, "no peculiar hardships" were imposed on "the sectaries 
who credulously received the fables of Ovid, and obstinately rejected the miracles of the 
Gospel," he expresses his surprise at the rapidity of the revolution that took place among the 
Romans from Paganism to Christianity. "The ruin of Paganism," he says--and his dates are from 
AD 378, the year when the Bishop of Rome was made Pontifex, to 395-- "The ruin of Paganism, 
in the age of Theodosius, is perhaps the only example of the total extirpation of any ancient and 
popular superstition; and may therefore deserve to be considered as a singular event in the 
history of the human mind. "...After referring to the hasty conversion of the senate, he thus 


proceeds: "The edifying example of the Anician family [in embracing Christianity] was soon 
imitated by the rest of the nobility... The citizens who subsisted by their own industry, and the 
populace who were supported by the public liberality, filled the churches of the Lateran and 
Vatican with an incessant throng of devout proselytes. The decrees of the senate, which 
proscribed the worship of idols, were ratified by the general consent of the Romans; the 
splendour of the capitol was defaced, and the solitary temples were abandoned to ruin and 
contempt. Rome submitted to the yoke of the Gospel... The generation that arose in the world, 
after the promulgation of Imperial aws, was ATTRACTED within the pale of the Catholic 
Church, and so RAPID, yet so GENTLE was the fall of Paganism, that only twenty-eight years 
after the death of Theodosius [the elder], the faint and minute vestiges were no longer visible to 
the eye of the legislator." Now, how can this great and rapid revolution be accounted for? Is it 
because the Word of the Lord has had free course and been glorified? Then, what means the new 
aspect that the Roman Church has now begun to assume? In exact proportion as Paganism has 
disappeared from without the Church, in the very same proportion it appears within it. Pagan 
dresses for the priests, Pagan festivals for the people, Pagan doctrines and ideas of all sorts, are 
everywhere in vogue. The testimony of the same historian, who has spoken so decisively about 
the rapid conversion of the Romans to the profession of the Gospel, is not less decisive on this 
point. In his account of the Roman Church, under the head of "Introduction of Pagan 
Ceremonies," he thus speaks: "As the objects of religion were gradually reduced to the standard 
of the imagination, the rites and ceremonies were introduced that seemed most powerfully to 
effect the senses of the vulgar. If, in the beginning of the fifth century, Tertullian or Lactantius 
had been suddenly raised from the dead, to assist at the festival of some popular saint or martyr, 
they would have gazed with astonishment and indignation on the profane spectacle which had 
succeeded to the pure and spiritual worship of a Christian congregation. As soon as the doors of 
the church were thrown open, they must have been offended by the smoke of incense, the 
perfume of flowers, and the glare of lamps and tapers, which diffused at noon-day a gaudy, 
superfluous, and, in their opinion, sacrilegious light." Gibbon has a great deal more to the same 
effect. Now, can any one believe that this was accidental? No. It was evidently the result of that 
unprincipled policy, of which, in the course of this inquiry, we have already seen such 
innumerable instances on the part of the Papacy. * 

* Gibbon distinctly admits this. "It must ingenuously be confessed," says he, "that 
the ministers of the Catholic Church imitated the profane model they were so 
impatient to destroy." 

Pope Damasus saw that, in a city pre-eminently given to idolatry, if he was to maintain the 
Gospel pure and entire, he must be willing to bear the cross, to encounter hatred and ill- will, to 
endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. On the other hand, he could not but equally 
see, that if bearing the title, around which, for so many ages, all the hopes and affections of 
Paganism had clustered, he should give its votaries reason to believe that he was willing to act up 
to the original spirit of that title, he might count on popularity, aggrandisement and glory. Which 
alternative, then, was Damasus likely to choose? The man that came into the bishopric of Rome, 
as a thief and a robber, over the dead bodies of above a hundred of his opponents, could not 
hesitate as to the election he should make. The result shows that he had acted in character, that, 
in assuming the Pagan title of Pontifex, he had set himself at whatever sacrifice of truth to justify 
his claims to that title in the eyes of the Pagans, as the legitimate representative of their long line 
of pontiffs. There is no possibility of accounting for the facts on any other supposition. It is 
evident also that he and his successors were ACCEPTED in that character by the Pagans, who, in 


flocking into the Roman Church, and rallying around the new Pontiff, did not change their creed 
or worship, but brought both into the Church along with them. The reader has seen how complete 
and perfect is the copy of the old Babylonian Paganism, which, under the patronage of the Popes, 
has been introduced into the Roman Church. He has seen that the god whom the Papacy 
worships as the Son of the Highest, is not only, in spite of a Divine command, worshipped under 
the form of an image, made, as in the days of avowed Paganism, by art and man's device, but that 
attributes are ascribed to Him which are the very opposite of those which belong to the merciful 
Saviour, but which attributes are precisely those which were ascribed to Moloch, the fire- god, or 
Ala Mahozim, "the god of fortifications." He has seen that, about the very time when the Bishop 
of Rome was invested with the Pagan title of Pontifex, the Saviour began to be called Ichthys, or 
"the Fish," thereby identifying Him with Dagon, or the Fish-god; and that, ever since, advancing 
step by step, as circumstances would permit, what has gone under the name of the worship of 
Christ, has just been the worship of that same Babylonian divinity, with all its rites and pomps 
and ceremonies, precisely as in ancient Babylon. Lastly, he has seen that the Sovereign Pontiff of 
the so-called Christian Church of Rome has so wrought out the title bestowed upon him in the 
end of the fourth century, as to be now dignified, as for centuries he has been, with the very 
"names of blasphemy" originally bestowed on the old Babylonian pontiffs. * 

* The reader who has seen the first edition of this work, will perceive that, in the 
above reasoning, I found nothing upon the formal appointment by Gratian of the 
Pope as Pontifex, with direct authority over the Pagans, as was done in that 
edition. That is not because I do not believe that such an appointment was made, 
but because, at the present moment, some obscurity rests on the subject. The Rev. 
Barcroft Boake, a very learned minister of the Church of England in Ceylon, 
when in this country, communicated to me his researches on the subject, which 
have made me hesitate to assert that there was any formal authority given to the 
Bishop of Rome over the Pagans by Gratian. At the same time, I am still 
convinced that the original statement was substantially true. The late Mr. Jones, in 
the Journal of Prophecy, not only referred to the Appendix to the Codex 
Theodosianus, in proof of such an appointment, but, in elucidation of the words of 
the Codex, asserted in express terms that there was a contest for the office of 
Pontifex, and that there were two candidates, the one a Pagan, Symmachus, who 
had previously been Valentinian's deputy, and the other the Bishop of Rome. 
{Quarterly Journal of Prophecy, Oct. 1852) I have not been able to find Mr. 
Jones's authority for this statement; but the statement is so circumstantial, that it 
cannot easily be called in question without impugning the veracity of him that 
made it. I have found Mr. Jones in error on divers points, but in no error of such a 
nature as this; and the character of the man forbids such a supposition. Moreover, 
the language of the Appendix cannot easily admit of any other interpretation. But, 
even though there were no formal appointment of Bishop Damasus to a 
pontificate extending over the Pagans, yet it is clear that, by the rescript of Gratian 
(the authenticity of which is fully admitted by the accurate Gieseler), he was made 
the supreme spiritual authority in the Western Empire in all religious questions. 
When, therefore, in the year 400, Pagan priests were, by the Christian Emperor of 
the West, from political motives, "acknowledged as public officers" (Cod. Theod., 
ad POMPEJANUM, Procons), these Pagan priests necessarily came under the 
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, as there was then no other tribunal but his for 


determining all matters affecting religion. In the text, however I have made no 
allusion to this. The argument, as I think the reader will admit, is sufficiently 
decisive without it. 

Now, if the circumstance in which the Pope has risen to all this height of power and blasphemous 
assumption, be compared with a prediction in Daniel, which, for want of the true key has never 
been understood, I think the reader will see how literally in the history of the Popes of Rome that 
prediction has been fulfilled. The prediction to which I allude is that which refers to what is 
commonly called the "Wilful King" as described in Daniel 11:36, and succeeding verses. That 
"Wilful King" is admitted on all hands to be a king that arises in Gospel times, and in 
Christendom, but has generally been supposed to be an Infidel Antichrist, not only opposing the 
truth but opposing Popery as well, and every thing that assumed the very name of Christianity. 
But now, let the prediction be read in the light of the facts that have passed in review before us, 
and it will be seen how very different is the case (v 36): "And the king shall do according to his 
will; and he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous 
things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that 
that is determined shall be done. Neither shall he regard the god of his fathers, nor the desire of 
women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all." So far these words give an 
exact description of the Papacy, with its pride, its blasphemy, and forced celibacy and virginity. 
But the words that follow, according to any sense that the commentators have put upon them, 
have never hitherto been found capable of being made to agree either with the theory that the 
Pope was intended, or any other theory whatever. Let them, however, only be literally rendered, 
and compared with the Papal history, and all is clear, consistent, and harmonious. The inspired 
seer has declared that, in the Church of Christ, some one shall arise who shall not only aspire to a 
great height, but shall actually reach it, so that "he shall do according to his will"; his will shall 
be supreme in opposition to all law, human and Divine. Now, f this king is to be a pretended 
successor of the fisherman of Galilee, the question would naturally arise, How could it be 
possible that he should ever have the means of rising to such a height of power? The words that 
follow give a distinct answer to that question: "He shall not REGARD * any god, for he shall 
magnify himself above all. BUT, in establishing himself, shall he honour the god of fortifications 
(Ala Mahozim), and a god, whom his fathers knew not, shall he honour with gold and silver, and 
with precious stones and pleasant things. Thus shall he make into strengthening bulwarks ** [for 
himself] the people of a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory; and 
he shall cause them to rule over many, and he shall divide the land for gain." 

* The reader will observe, it is not said he shall not worship any god; the reverse 
is evident; but that he shall not regard any, that his own glory is his highest end. 

** The word here is the same as above rendered "fortifications." 

Such is the prophecy. Now, this is exactly what the Pope did. Self- aggrandisement has ever been 
the grand principle of the Papacy; and, in "establishing" himself, it was just the "god of 
Fortifications" that he honoured. The worship of that god he introduced into the Roman Church; 
and, by so doing, he converted that which otherwise would have been a source of weakness to 
him, into the very tower of his strength- -he made the very Paganism of Rome by which he was 
surrounded the bulwark of his power. When once it was proved that the Pope was willing to 
adopt Paganism under Christian names, the Pagans and Pagan priests would be his most hearty 
and staunch defenders. And when the Pope began to wield lordly power over the Christians, who 
were the men that he would recommend --that he would promote--that he would advance to 


honour and power? Just the very people most devoted to "the worship of the strange god" which 
he had introduced into the Christian Church. Gratitude and self-interest alike would conspire to 
this. Jovinian, and all who resisted the Pagan ideas and Pagan practices, were excommunicated 
and persecuted. Those only who were heartily attached to the apostacy (and none could now be 
more so than genuine Pagans) were favoured and advanced. Such men were sent from Rome in 
all directions, even as far as Britain, to restore the reign of Paganism--they were magnified with 
high titles, the lands were divided among them, and all to promote "the gain" of the Romish see, 
to bring in "Peter's pence" from the ends of the earth to the Roman Pontiff. But it is still further 
said, that the self- magnifying king was to "honour a god, whom his fathers knew not, with gold 
and silver and precious stones." The principle on which transubstantiation was founded is 
unquestionably a Babylonian principle, but there is no evidence that that principle was applied in 
the way in which it has been by the Papacy. Certain it is, that we have evidence that no such 
wafer- god as the Papacy worships was ever worshipped in Pagan Rome. "Was any man ever so 
mad," says Cicero, who himself was a Roman augur and a priest-- "was any man ever so mad as 
to take that which he feeds on for a god?" Cicero could not have said this if anything like wafer- 
worship had been established in Rome. But what was too absurd for Pagan Romans is no 
absurdity at all for the Pope. The host, or consecrated wafer, is the great god of the Romish 
Church. That host is enshrined in a box adorned with gold and silver and precious stones. And 
thus it is manifest that "a god" whom even the Pope's Pagan "fathers knew not," he at this day 
honours in the very way that the terms of the prediction imply that he would. Thus, in every 
respect, when the Pope was invested with the Pagan title of Pontifex, and set himself to make 
that title a reality, he exactly fulfilled the prediction of Daniel recorded more than 900 years 

But to return to the Apocalyptic symbols. It was out of the mouth of the "Fiery Dragon" that "the 
flood of water" was discharged. The Pope, as he is now, was at the close of the fourth century the 
only representative of Belshazzar, or Nimrod, on the earth; for the Pagans manifestly 
ACCEPTED him as such. He was equally, of course, the legitimate successor of the Roman 
"Dragon of fire." When, therefore, on being dignified with the title of Pontifex, he set himself to 
propagate the old Babylonian doctrine of baptismal regeneration, that was just a direct and 
formal fulfilment of the Divine words, that the great Fiery Dragon should "cast out of his mouth 
a flood of water to carry away the Woman with the flood." He, and those who co-operated with 
him in this cause, paved the way for the erecting of that tremendous civil and spiritual despotism 
which began to stand forth full in the face of Europe in AD 606, when, amid the convulsions and 
confusions of the nations tossed like a tempestuous sea, the Pope of Rome was made Universal 
Bishop; and when the ten chief kingdoms of Europe recognised him as Christ's Vicar upon earth, 
the only centre of unity, the only source of stability to their thrones. Then by his own act and 
deed, and by the consent of the UNIVERSAL PAGANISM of Rome, he was actually the 
representative of Dagon; and as he bears upon his head at this day the mitre of Dagon, so there is 
reason to believe he did then. * 

* It is fom this period only that the well-known 1260 days can begin to be 
counted; for not before did the Pope appear as Head of the ten-horned beast, and 
head of the Universal Church. The reader will observe that though the beast above 
referred to has passed through the sea, it still retains its primitive characteristic. 
The head of the apostacy at first was Kronos, "The Horned One." The head of the 
apostacy is Kronos still, for he is the beast "with seven head and ten horns." 


Could there, then, be a more exact fulfilment of chapter 13:1 "And I stood upon the sand of the 
sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns 
ten crowns, and upon his heads the names of blasphemy... And I saw one of his heads as it had 
been wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed, and all the world wondered after the 

Section III 
The Beast from the Earth 

This beast is presented to our notice (Rev 13:11): "And I beheld another beast coming up out of 
the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a serpent." Though this beast is 
mentioned after the beast from the sea, it does not follow that he came into existence after the 
sea-beast. The work he did seems to show the very contrary; for it is by his instrumentality that 
mankind are led (v 12) "to worship the first beast" after that beast had received the deadly 
wound, which shows that he must have been in existence before. The reason that he is mentioned 
second, is just because, as he exercises all the powers of the first beast, and leads all men to 
worship him, so he could not properly be described till that beast had first appeared on the stage. 
Now, in ancient Chaldea there was the type, also, of this. That god was called in Babylon Nebo, 
in Egypt Nub or Num, * and among the Romans Numa, for Numa Pompilius, the great priest- 
king of the Romans, occupied precisely the position of the Babylonian Nebo. 

* In Egypt, especially among the Greek- speaking population, the Egyptian b 
frequently passed into an m. 

Fig. 55: The Ram- Headed God of Egypt 

From WILKINSON, Plate 22, "Amum." by comparing this figure with what is 
said in WILKINSON, vol. iv. pp. 235, 238, it will be seen, that though the above 
figure is called by the name of "Amum," the ram's head makes it out as having 
the attributes of Noub. 


Among the Etrurians, from whom the Romans derived the most of their rites, he was called 
Tages, and of this Tages it is particularly recorded, that just as John saw the beast under 
consideration "come up out of the earth," so Tages was a child suddenly and miraculously born 
out of a furrow or hole in the ground. In Egypt, this God was represented with the head and 
horns of a ram (Fig. 55) . In Etruria he seems to have been represented in a somewhat similar 
way; for there we find a Divine and miraculous child exhibited wearing the ram's horns (Fig. 
56 ). The name Nebo, the grand distinctive name of this god, signifies "The Prophet," and as 
such, he gave oracles, practised augury, pretended to miraculous powers, and was an adept in 
magic. He was the great wonder-worker, and answered exactly to the terms of the prophecy, 
when it is said (v 13), "he doeth great wonders, and causeth fire to come down from heaven in 
the sight of men." It was in this very character that the Etrurian Tages was known; for it was he 
who was said to have taught the Romans augury, and all the superstition and wonder-working 
jugglery connected therewith. As in recent times, we hear of weeping images and winking 
Madonnas, and innumerable prodigies besides, continually occurring in the Romish Church, in 
proof of this papal dogma or that, so was it also in the system of Babylon. There is hardly a form 
of "pious fraud" or saintly imposture practised at this day on the banks of the Tiber, that cannot 
be proved to have had its counterpart on the banks of the Euphrates, or in the systems that came 
from it. Has the image of the Virgin been seen to shed tears? Many a tear was shed by the Pagan 
images. To these tender-hearted idols Lucan alludes, when, speaking of the prodigies that 
occurred during the civil wars, he says:-- 

"Tears shed by gods, our country's patrons, 
And sweat from Lares, told the city's woes." 

Virgil also refers to the same, when he says:-- 

"The weeping statues did the wars foretell, 
And holy sweat from brazen idols fell." 

Fig. 56: The Ram- Headed Boy- God of Etruria 

From Antiquites Etrusues. Par. F.A. David. Vol. v. Plate 57. 


When in the consulship of Appius Claudius, and Marcus Perpenna, Publius Crassus was slain in 
a battle with Aristonicus, Apollo's statue at Cumae shed tears for four days without intermission. 
The gods had also their merry moods, as well as their weeping fits. If Rome counts it a divine 
accomplishment for the sacred image of her Madonna to "wink," it was surely not less becoming 
in the sacred images of Paganism to relax their features into an occasional grin. That they did so, 
we have abundant testimony. Psellus tells us that, when the priests put forth their magic powers, 
"then statues laughed, and lamps were spontaneously enkindled." When the images made merry, 
however, they seemed to have inspired other feelings than those of merriment into the breasts of 
those who beheld them. "The Theurgists," says Salverte, "caused the appearance of the gods in 
the air, in the midst of gaseous vapour, disengaged from fire. The Theurgis Maximus 
undoubtedly made use of a secret analogous to this, when, in the fumes of the incense which he 
burned before the statue of Hecate, the image was seen to laugh so naturally as to fill the 
spectators with terror." There were times, however, when different feelings were inspired. Has 
the image of the Madonna been made to look benignantly upon a favoured worshipper, and send 
him home assured that his prayer was heard? So did the statues of the Egyptian Isis. They were 
so framed, that the goddess could shake the silver serpent on her forehead, and nod assent to 
those who had preferred their petitions in such a way as pleased her. We read of Romish saints 
that showed their miraculous powers by crossing rivers or the sea in most unlikely conveyances. 
Thus, of St. Raymond it is written that he was transported over the sea on his cloak. Paganism is 
not a whit behind in this matter; for it is recorded of a Buddhist saint, Sura Acharya, that, when 
"he used to visit his flocks west of the Indus, he floated himself across the stream upon his 
mantle." Nay, the gods and high priests of Paganism showed far more buoyancy than even this. 
There is a holy man, at this day, in the Church of Rome, somewhere on the Continent, who 
rejoices in the name of St. Cubertin, who so overflows with spirituality, that when he engages in 
his devotions there is no keeping his body down to the ground, but, spite of all the laws of 
gravity, it rises several feet into the air. So was it also with the renowned St. Francis of Assisi, 
Petrus a Martina, and Francis of Macerata, some centuries ago. But both St. Cubertin and St. 
Francis and his fellows are far from being original in this superhuman devotion. The priests and 
magicians in the Chaldean Mysteries anticipated them not merely by centuries, but by thousands 
of years. Coelius Rhodiginus says, "that, according to the Chaldeans, luminous rays, emanating 
from the soul, do sometimes divinely penetrate the body, which is then of itself raised above the 
earth, and that this was the case with Zoroaster." The disciples of Jamblichus asserted that they 
had often witnessed the same miracle in the case of their master, who, when he prayed was 
raised to the height of ten cubits from the earth. The greatest miracle which Rome pretends to 
work, is when, by the repetition of five magic words, she professes to bring down the body, 
blood, soul, and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ from heaven, to make Him really and 
corporeally present in the sacrament of the altar. The Chaldean priests pretended, by their magic 
spells, in like manner, to bring down their divinities into their statues, so that their "real 
presence" should be visibly manifested in them. This they called "the making of gods"; and from 
this no doubt comes the blasphemous saying of the Popish priests, that they have power "to 
create their Creator." There is no evidence, so far as I have been able to find, that, in the 
Babylonian system, the thin round cake of wafer, the "unbloody sacrifice of the mass," was ever 
regarded in any other light than as a symbol, that ever it was held to be changed into the god 
whom it represented. But yet the doctrine of transubstantiation is clearly of the very essence of 
Magic, which pretended, on the pronunciation of a few potent words, to change one substance 
into another, or by a dexterous juggle, wholly to remove one substance, and to substitute another 


in its place. Further, the Pope, in the plenitude of his power, assumes the right of wielding the 
lightnings of Jehovah, and of blasting by his "fulminations" whoever offends him. Kings, and 
whole nations, believing in this power, have trembled and bowed before him, through fear of 
being scathed by his spiritual thunders. The priests of Paganism assumed the very same power; 
and, to enforce the belief of their spiritual power, they even attempted to bring down the literal 
lightnings from heaven; yea, there seems some reason to believe that they actually succeeded, 
and anticipated the splendid discovery of Dr. Franklin. Numa Pompilius is said to have done so 
with complete success. Tullus Hostilius, his successor, imitating his example, perished in the 
attempt, himself and his whole family being struck, like Professor Reichman in recent times, 
with the lightning he was endeavouring to draw down. * Such were the wonder-working powers 
attributed in the Divine Word to the beast that was to come up from the earth; and by the old 
Babylonian type these very powers were all pretended to be exercised. 

* The means appointed for drawing down the lightning were described in the 
books of the Etrurian Tages. Numa had copied from these books, and had left 
commentaries behind him on the subject, which Tallus had misunderstood, and 
hence the catastrophe. 

Now, in remembrance of the birth of the god out of a "hole in the earth," the Mysteries were 
frequently celebrated in caves under ground. This was the case in Persia, where, just as Tages 
was said to be born out of the ground, Mithra was in like manner fabled to have been produced 
from a cave in the earth. * 

* JUSTIN MARTYR. It is remarkable that, as Mithra was born out of a cave, so 
the idolatrous nominal Christians of the East represent our Saviour as having in 
like manner been born in a a cave. (See KITTO's Cyclopaedia, "Bethlehem") 
There is not the least hint of such a thing in the Scripture. 

Numa of Rome himself pretended to get all his revelations from the Nymph Egeria, in a cave. In 
these caves men were first initiated in the secret Mysteries, and by the signs and lying wonders 
there presented to them, they were led back, after the death of Nimrod, to the worship of that god 
in its new form. This Apocalyptic beast, then, that "comes up out of the earth," agrees in all 
respects with that ancient god born from a "hole in the ground"; for no words could more exactly 
describe his doing than the words of the prediction (v 13): "He doeth great wonders, and causeth 
fire to come down from heaven in the sight of men,. ..and he causeth the earth and them that 
dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed." This wonder-working 
beast, called Nebo, or "The Prophet," as the prophet of idolatry, was, of course, the "false 
prophet." By comparing the passage before us with Revelation 19:20, it will be manifest that this 
beast that "came up out of the earth" is expressly called by that very name: "And the beast was 
taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived 
them that received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image." As it was the 
"beast from the earth" that "wrought miracles" before the first beast, this shows that "the beast 
from the earth" is the "false prophet"; in other words, is "Nebo." 

If we examine the history of the Roman empire, we shall find that here also there is a precise 
accordance between type and antitype. When the deadly wound of Paganism was healed, and the 
old Pagan title of Pontiff was restored, it was, through means of the corrupt clergy, symbolised, 
as is generally believed, and justly under the image of a beast with horns, like a lamb; according 
to the saying of our Lord, "Beware of false prophets, that shall come to you in sheep's clothing, 


but inwardly they are ravening wolves." The clergy, as a corporate body, consisted of two grand 
divisions --the regular and secular clergy answering to the two horns or powers of the beast, and 
combining also, at a very early period, both temporal and spiritual powers. The bishops, as heads 
of these clergy, had large temporal powers, long before the Pope gained his temporal crown. We 
have the distinct evidence of both Guizot and Gibbon to this effect. After showing that before the 
fifth century, the clergy had not only become distinct from, but independent of the people, 
Guizot adds: "The Christian clergy had moreover another and very different source of influence. 
The bishops and priests became the principal municipal magistrates. ..If you open the code, 
either of Theodosius or Justinian, you will find numerous regulations which remit municipal 
affairs to the clergy and the bishops." Guizot makes several quotations. The following extract 
from the Justinian code is sufficient to show how ample was the civil power bestowed upon the 
bishops: "With respect to the yearly affairs of cities, whether they concern the ordinary revenues 
of the city, either from funds arising from the property of the city, or from private gifts or 
legacies, or from any other source; whether public works, or depots of provisions or aqueducts, 
or the maintenance of baths or ports, or the construction of walls or towers, or the repairing of 
bridges or roads, or trials, in which the city may be engaged in reference to public or private 
interests, we ordain as follows:--The very pious bishop, and three notables, chosen from among 
the first men of the city, shall meet together; they shall each year examine the works done; they 
shall take care that those who conduct them, or who have conducted them, shall regulate them 
with precision, render their accounts, and show that they have duly performed their engagements 
in the administration, whether of the public monuments, or of the sums appointed for provisions 
or baths, or of expenses in the maintenance of roads, aqueducts, or any other work." Here is a 
large list of functions laid on the spiritual shoulders of "the very pious bishop," not one of which 
is even hinted at in the Divine enumeration of the duties of a bishop, as contained in the Word of 
God. (See 1 Timothy 3:1-7; and Titus 1:5-9.) How did the bishops, who were originally 
appointed for purely spiritual objects, contrive to grasp at such a large amount of temporal 
authority? From Gibbon we get light as to the real origin of what Guizot calls this "prodigious 
power." The author of the Decline and Fall shows, that soon after Constantine's time, "the 
Church" [and consequently the bishops, especially when they assumed to be a separate order 
from the other clergy] gained great temporal power through the right of asylum, which had 
belonged to the Pagan temples, being transferred by the Emperors to the Christian churches. His 
words are: "The fugitive, and even the guilty, were permitted to implore either the justice or 
mercy of the Deity and His ministers." Thus was the foundation laid of the invasion of the rights 
of the civil magistrate by ecclesiastics, and thus were they encouraged to grasp at all the powers 
of the State. Thus, also, as is justly observed by the authoress of Rome in the 19th Century, 
speaking of the right of asylum, were "the altars perverted into protection towards the very 
crimes they were raised to banish from the world." This is a very striking thing, as showing how 
the temporal power of the Papacy, in its very first beginnings, was founded on "lawlessness," and 
is an additional proof to the many that might be alleged, that the Head of the Roman system, to 
whom all bishops are subject is indeed "The Lawless One" (2 Thess 2:8), predicted in Scripture 
as the recognised Head of the "Mystery of Iniquity." All this temporal power came into the hands 
of men, who, while professing to be ministers of Christ, and followers of the Lamb, were seeking 
simply their own aggrandisement, and, to secure that aggrandisement, did not hesitate to betray 
the cause which they professed to serve. The spiritual power which they wielded over the souls 
of men, and the secular power which they gained in the affairs of the world, were both alike used 
in opposition to the cause of pure religion and undefiled. At first these false prophets, in leading 


men astray, and seeking to unite Paganism and Christianity, wrought under-ground, mining like 
the mole in the dark, and secretly perverting the simple, according to the saying of Paul, "The 
Mystery of Iniquity doth already work." But by-and-by, towards the end of the fourth century, 
when the minds of men had been pretty well prepared, and the aspects of things seemed to be 
favourable for it, the wolves in sheep's clothing appeared above ground, brought their secret 
doctrines and practices, by little and little, into the light of day, and century after century, as their 
power increased, by means of all "deceivableness of unrighteousness," and "signs and lying 
wonders," deluded the minds of the worldly Christians, made them believe that their anathema 
was equivalent to the curse of God; in other words, that they could "bring down fire from 
heaven," and thus "caused the earth, and them that dwelt therein, to worship the beast whose 
deadly wound was healed." * 

* Though the Pope be the great Jupiter Tonans of the Papacy, and "fulminates" 
from the Vatican, as his predecessor was formerly believed to do from the 
Capitol, yet it is not he in reality that brings down the fire from heaven, but his 
clergy. But for the influence of the clergy in everywhere blinding the minds of the 
people, the Papal thunders would be but "bruta fulmina" after all. The symbol, 
therefore, is most exact, when it attributes the "bringing down of the fire from 
heaven," to the beast from the earth, rather than to the beast from the sea. 

When "the deadly wound" of the Pagan beast was healed, and the beast from the sea appeared, it 
is said that this beast from the earth became the recognised, accredited executor of the will of the 
great sea beast (v 12), "And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him," literally "in 
his presence "--under his inspection. Considering who the first beast is, there is great force in this 
expression "in his presence." The beast that comes up from the sea, is "the little horn," that "has 
eyes like the eyes of man" (Dan 7:8); it is Janus Tuens, "All-seeing Janus," in other words, the 
Universal Bishop or "Universal Overseer," who, from his throne on the seven hills, by means of 
the organised system of the confessional, sees and knows all that is done, to be the utmost bounds 
of his wide dominion. Now, it was just exactly about the time that the Pope became universal 
bishop, that the custom began of systematically investing the chief bishops of the Western 
empire with the Papal livery, the pallium, "for the purpose," says Gieseler, "of symbolising and 
strengthening their connection with the Church of Rome." * 

* GIESELER. From Gieseler we learn that so early as 501, the Bishop of Rome 
had laid the foundation of the corporation of bishops by the bestowal of the 
pallium; but, at the same time, he expressly states that it was only about 602, at 
the v 63 ascent of Phocas to the imperial throne --that Phocas that made the Pope 
Universal Bishop- -that the Popes began to bestow the pallium, that is, of course, 
systematically, and on a large scale. 

That pallium, worn on the shoulders of the bishops, while on the one hand it was the livery of the 
Pope, and bound those who received it to act as the functionaries of Rome, deriving all their 
authority from him, and exercising it under his superintendence, as the "Bishop of bishops," on 
the other hand, was in reality the visible investiture of these wolves with the sheep's clothing. For 
what was the pallium of the Papal bishop? It was a dress made of wool, blessed by the Pope, 
taken from the holy lambs kept by the nuns of St. Agnes, and woven by their sacred hands, that it 
might be bestowed on those whom the Popes delighted to honour, for the purpose, as one of 
themselves expressed it, of "joining them to our society in the one pastoral sheepfold." * 


* GIESELER, "Papacy"). The reader who peruses the early letters of the Popes in 
bestowing the pallium, will not fail to observe the wide difference of meaning 
between "the one pastoral sheepfold" above referred to, and "the one sheepfold" 
of our Lord. The former really means a sheepfold consisting of pastors or 
shepherds. The papal letters unequivocally imply the organisation of the bishops, 
as a distinct corporation, altogether independent of the Church, and dependent 
only on the Papacy, which seems remarkably to agree with the terms of the 
prediction in regard to the beast from the earth. 

Thus commissioned, thus ordained by the universal Bishop, they did their work effectually, and 
brought the earth and them that dwelt in it, "to worship the beast that received the wound by a 
sword and did live." This was a part of this beast's predicted work. But there was another, and 
not less important, which remains for consideration. 

Section IV 
The Image of the Beast 

Not merely does the beast from the earth lead the world to worship the first beast, but (v 14) he 
prevails on them that dwell on the earth to make "an IMAGE to the beast, which had the wound 
by a sword, and did live." In meditating for many years on what might be implied in "the image 
of the beast," I could never find the least satisfaction in all the theories that had ever been 
propounded, till I fell in with an unpretending but valuable work, which I have noticed already, 
entitled An Original Interpretation of the Apocalypse. That work, evidently the production of a 
penetrating mind deeply read in the history of the Papacy, furnished at once the solution of the 
difficulty. There the image of the beast is pronounced to be the Virgin Mother, or the Madonna. 
This at first sight may appear a very unlikely solution; but when it is brought into comparison 
with the religious history of Chaldea, the unlikelihood entirely disappears. In the old Babylonian 
Paganism, there was an image of the Beast from the sea; and when it is known what that image 
was, the question will, I think, be fairly decided. When Dagon was first set up to be worshipped, 
while he was represented in many different ways, and exhibited in many different characters, the 
favourite form in which he was worshipped, as the reader well knows, was that of a child in his 
mother's arms. In the natural course of events, the mother came to be worshipped along with the 
child, yea, to be the favourite object of worship. To justify this worship, as we have already seen, 
that mother, of course, must be raised to divinity, and divine powers and prerogatives ascribed to 
her. Whatever dignity, therefore, the son was believed to possess a like dignity was ascribed to 
her. Whatever name of honour he bore, a similar name was bestowed upon her. He was called 
Belus, "the Lord"; she, Beltis, "My Lady." He was called Dagon, "the Merman"; she, Derketo, 
"the Mermaid." He, as the World-king, wore the bull's horns; she, as we have already seen, on 
the authority of Sanchuniathon, put on her own head a bull's head, as the ensign of royalty. * 

* EUSEBIUS, Proeparatio Evangelii. This statement is remarkable, as showing 
that the horns which the great goddess wore were really intended to exhibit her as 
the express image of Ninus, or "the Son." Had she worn merely the cow's horns, it 
might have been supposed that these horns were intended only to identify her with 
the moon. But the bull's horns show that the intention was to represent her as 
equal in her sovereignty with Nimrod, or Kronos, the "Horned one." 


He, as the Sun- god, was called Beel-samen, "Lord of heaven"; she, as the Moon- goddess, 
Melkat-ashemin, "Queen of heaven." He was worshipped in Egypt as the "Revealer of goodness 
and truth"; she, in Babylon, under the symbol of the Dove, as the goddess of gentleness and 
mercy, the "Mother of gracious acceptance," "merciful and benignant to men." He, under the 
name of Mithra, was worshipped as Mesites, or "the Mediator"; she, as Aphrodite, or the "Wrath- 
subduer," was called Mylitta, "the Mediatrix." He was represented as crushing the great serpent 
under his heel; she, as bruising the serpent's head in her hand. He, under the name Janus, bore a 
key as the opener and shutter of the gates of the invisible world. She, under the name of Cybele, 
was invested with a like key, as an emblem of the same power. * 

* TOOKE'S Pantheon. That the key of Cybele, in the esoteric story, had a 
corresponding meaning to that of Janus, will appear from the character above 
assigned to her as the Mediatrix. 

He, as the cleanser from sin, was called the "Unpolluted god"; she, too, had the power to wash 
away sin, and, though the mother of the seed, was called the "Virgin, pure and undefiled." He 
was represented as "Judge of the dead"; she was represented as standing by his side, at the 
judgment- seat, in the unseen world. He, after being killed by the sword, was fabled to have risen 
again, and ascended up to heaven. She, too, though history makes her to have been killed with 
the sword by one of her own sons, * was nevertheless in the myth, said to have been carried by 
her son bodily to heaven, and to have been made Pambasileia, "Queen of the universe." Finally, 
to clench the whole, the name by which she was now known was Semele, which, in the 
Babylonian language, signifies "THE IMAGE." ** Thus, in every respect, to the very least jot 
and tittle, she became the express image of the Babylonian "beast that had the wound by a sword, 
and did live." 

* In like manner, Horus, in Egypt, is said to have cut off his mother's head, as Bel 
in Babylon also cut asunder the great primeval goddess of the Babylonians. 


** Apollodorus states that Bacchus, on carrying his mother to heaven, called her 
Thuone, which was just the feminine of his own name, Thuoenus--in Latin 
Thyoneus. (OVID, Metam.) Thuoneus is evidently from the passive participle of 
Thn, "to lament," a synonym for "Bacchus," "The lamented god." Thuone, in like 
manner, is "The lamented goddess." The Roman Juno was evidently known in this 
very character of the "Image"; for there was a temple erected to her in Rome, on 
the Capitoline hill, under the name of "Juno Moneta." Moneta is the emphatic 
form of one of the Chaldee words for an "image"; and that this was the real 
meaning of the name, will appear from the fact that the Mint was contained in the 
precincts of that temple. (See SMITH'S "Juno") What is the use of a mint but just 
to stamp "images" '? Hence the connection between Juno and the Mint. 

After what the reader has already seen in a previous part of this work, it is hardly necessary to 
say that it is this very goddess that is now worshipped in the Church of Rome under the name of 
Mary. Though that goddess is called by the name of the mother of our Lord, all the attributes 
given to her are derived simply from the Babylonian Madonna, and not from the Virgin Mother 
of Christ. * 

* The very way in which the Popish Madonna is represented is plainly copied 
from the idolatrous representations of the Pagan goddess. The great god used to 


be represented as sitting or standing in the cup of a Lotus -flower. In India, the 
very same mode of representation is common; Brahma being often seen seated on 
a Lotus- flower, said to have sprung from the navel of Vishnu. The great goddess, 
in like manner, must have a similar couch; and, therefore, in India, we find 
Lakshmi, the "Mother of the Universe," sitting on a Lotus, borne by a tortoise (see 
Fig. 57) . Now, in this very thing, also Popery has copied from its Pagan model; 
for, in the Pancarpium Marianum the Virgin and child are represented sitting in 
the cup of a tulip (see Fig. 58) . 

Fig. 57: Indian Goddess Lakshmi, sitting in a Lotus- flower, borne by a Tortoise 

From COLEMAN's Mythology, plate 23. 


Fig. 58: Virgin and Child sitting in Cup of Tulip 

Pancarpium Marianum, p. 88 


There is not one line or one letter in all the Bible to countenance the idea that Mary should be 
worshipped, that she is the "refuge of sinners," that she was "immaculate," that she made 
atonement for sin when standing by the cross, and when, according to Simeon, "a sword pierced 
through her own soul also"; or that, after her death, she was raised from the dead and carried in 
glory to heaven. But in the Babylonian system all this was found; and all this is now incorporated 
in the system of Rome. The "sacred heart of Mary" is exhibited as pierced through with a sword, 
in token, as the apostate Church teaches, that her anguish at the crucifixion was as true an 
atonement as the death of Christ;--for we read in the Devotional office or Service-book, adopted 
by the "Sodality of the sacred heart," such blasphemous words as these, "Go, then, devout client! 
go to the heart of Jesus, but let your way be through the heart of Mary; the sword of grief which 
pierced her soul opens you a passage; enter by the wound which love has made"; *--again we 
hear one expounder of the new faith, like M. Genoude in France, say that "Mary was the repairer 
of the guilt of Eve, as our Lord was the repairer of the guilt of Adam"; and another--Professor 
Oswald of Paderbon-- affirm that Mary was not a human creature like us, that she is "the Woman, 
as Christ is the Man," that "Mary is co-present in the Eucharist, and that it is indisputable that, 
according to the Eucharistic doctrine of the Church, this presence of Mary in the Eucharist is true 
and real, not merely ideal or figurative"; and, further, we read in the Pope's decree of the 
Immaculate Conception, that that same Madonna, for this purpose "wounded with the sword," 
rose from the dead, and being assumed up on high, became Queen of Heaven. If all this be so, 
who can fail to see that in that apostate community is to be found what precisely answers to the 
making and setting up in the heart of Christendom, of an "Image to the beast that had the wound 
by a sword and did live"? 

* Memoir of Rev. Godfrey Massy. In the Paradisus sponsi et sponsoe, by the 
author of Pancarpium Marianum, the following words, addressed to the Virgin, 
occur in illustration of a plate representing the crucifixion, and Mary, at the foot 
of the Cross, with the sword in her breast, "Thy beloved son did sacrifice his 
flesh; thou thy soul--yea, both body and soul." This does much more than put the 
sacrifice of the Virgin on a level with that of the Lord Jesus, it makes it greater 
far. This, in 1617, was the creed only of Jesuitism; now there is reason to believe 
it to be the general creed of the Papacy. 

If the inspired terms be consulted, it will be seen that this was to be done by some public general 
act of apostate Christendom; (v 14), "Saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should 
make an image to the beast"; and they made it. Now, here is the important fact to be observed, 
that this never was done, and this never could have been done, till eight years ago; for this plain 
reason, that till then the Madonna of Rome was never recognised as combining all the characters 
that belonged to the Babylonian "IMAGE of the beast." Till then it was not admitted even in 
Rome, though this evil leaven had been long working, and that strongly, that Mary was truly 
immaculate, and consequently she could not be the perfect counterpart of the Babylonian Image. 
What, however, had never been done before, was done in December, 1854. Then bishops from 
all parts of Christendom, and representatives from the ends of the earth, met in Rome; and with 
only four dissentient voices, it was decreed that Mary, the mother of God, who died, rose from 
the dead, and ascended into heaven, should henceforth be worshipped as the Immaculate Virgin, 
"conceived and born without sin." This was the formal setting up of the Image of the beast, and 
that by the general consent of "the men that dwell upon the earth." Now, this beast being set up, 
it is said, that the beast from the earth gives life and speech to the Image, implying, first, that it 
has neither life nor voice in itself; but that, nevertheless, through means of the beast from the 


earth, it is to have both life and voice, and to be an effective agent of the Papal clergy, who will 
make it speak exactly as they please. Since the Image has been set up, its voice has been 
everywhere heard throughout the Papacy. Formerly decrees ran less or more in the name of 
Christ. Now all things are pre-eminently done in the name of the Immaculate Virgin. Her voice is 
everywhere heard- -her voice is supreme. But, be it observed, when that voice is heard, it is not 
the voice of mercy and love, it is the voice of cruelty and terror. The decrees that come forth 
under the name of the Image, are to this effect (v 17), that "no man might buy or sell, save he 
that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name." No sooner is the image 
set up than we see this very thing begun to be carried out. What was the Concordat in Austria, 
that so speedily followed, but this very thing? That concordat, through the force of unexpected 
events that have arisen, has not yet been carried into effect; but if it were, the results would just 
be what is predicted- -that no man in the Austrian dominions should "buy or sell" without the 
mark in some shape or other. And the very fact of such an intolerant concordat coming so 
speedily on the back of the Decree of the Immaculate Conception, shows what is the natural fruit 
of that decree. The events that soon thereafter took place in Spain showed the powerful working 
of the same persecuting spirit there also. During the last few years, the tide of spiritual despotism 
might have seemed to be effectually arrested; and many, no doubt, have indulged the persuasion 
that, crippled as the temporal sovereignty of the Papacy is, and tottering as it seems to be, that 
power, or its subordinates, could never persecute more. But there is an amazing vitality in the 
Mystery of Iniquity; and no one can ever tell beforehand what apparent impossibilities it may 
accomplish in the way of arresting the progress of truth and liberty, however promising the 
aspect of things may be. Whatever may become of the temporal sovereignty of the Roman states, 
it is by no means so evident this day, as to many it seemed only a short while ago, that the 
overthrow of the spiritual power of the Papacy is imminent, and that its power to persecute is 
finally gone. I doubt not but that many, constrained by the love and mercy of God, will yet obey 
the heavenly voice, and flee out of the doomed communion, before the vials of Divine wrath 
descend upon it. But if I have been right in the interpretation of this passage, then it follows that 
it must yet become more persecuting than ever it has been, and that that intolerance, which, 
immediately after the setting up of the Image, began to display itself in Austria and Spain, shall 
yet spread over all Europe; for it is not said that the Image of the beast should merely decree, but 
should "cause that as many as would not worship the Image of the beast should be killed" (v 15). 
When this takes place, that evidently is the time when the language of verse 8 is fulfilled, "And 
all that dwell on the earth shall worship the beast, whose names are not written in the book of life 
of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." It is impossible to get quit of this by saying, 
"This refers to the Dark Ages; this was fulfilled before Luther." I ask, had the men who dwelt on 
the earth set up the Image of the beast before Luther's days? Plainly not. The decree of the 
Immaculate Conception was the deed of yesterday. The prophecy, then, refers to our own times-- 
to the period on which the Church is now entering. In other words, the slaying of the witnesses, 
the grand trial of the saints, IS STILL TO COME, (see note below) 

The Slaying of the Witnesses 

Is it past, or is it still to come? This is a vital question. The favourite doctrine at this moment is, 
that it is past centuries ago, and that no such dark night of suffering to the saints of God can ever 
come again, as happened just before the era of the Reformation. This is the cardinal principle of 
a work that has just appeared, under the title of The Great Exodus, which implies, that however 


much the truth may be assailed, however much the saints of God may be threatened, however 
their fears may be aroused, they have no real reason to fear, for that the Red Sea will divide, the 
tribes of the Lord will pass through dry shod, and all their enemies, like Pharaoh and his host, 
shall sink in overwhelming ruin. If the doctrine maintained by many of the soberest interpreters 
of Scripture for a century past, including such names as Brown of Haddington, Thomas Scott, 
and others, be well founded- viz., that the putting down of the testimony of the witnesses is till to 
come, this theory must not only be a delusion, but a delusion of most fatal tendency--a delusion 
that by throwing professors off their guard, and giving them an excuse for taking their ease, 
rather than standing in the high places of the field, and bearing bold and unflinching testimony 
for Christ, directly paves the way for that very extinction of the testimony which is predicted. I 
enter not into any historical disquisition as to the question, whether, as a matter of fact, it was 
true that the witnesses were slain before Luther appeared. Those who wish to see an historical 
argument on the subject may see it in the Red Republic, which I venture to think has not yet been 
answered. Neither do I think it worth while particularly to examine the assumption of Dr. Wylie, 
and I hold it to be a pure and gratuitous assumption, that the 1260 days during which the saints of 
God in Gospel times were to suffer for righteousness' sake, has any relation whatever, as a half 
period, to a whole, symbolised by the "Seven times" that passed over Nebuchadnezzar when he 
was suffering and chastened for his pride and blasphemy, as the representative of the "world 
power." * 

* The author does not himself make the humiliation of the Babylonian king a type 
of the humiliation of the Church. How then can he establish any typical relation 
between the "seven times" in the one case, and the "seven times" in the other? He 
seems to think it quite enough to establish that relation, if he can find one point of 
resemblance between Nebuchadnezzar, the humbled despot, and the "world- 
power" that oppresses the Church during the two periods of "seven times" 
respectively. That one point is the "madness" of the one and the other. It might be 
asked, Was, then, the "world-power" in its right mind before "the seven times" 
began? But waiving that, here is the vital objection to this view: The madness in 
the case of Nebuchadnezzar was simply an affliction; in the other it was sin. The 
madness of Nebuchadnezzar did not, so far as we know, lead him to oppress a 
single individual; the madness of the "world-power," according to the theory, is 
essentially characterised by the oppression of the saints. Where, then, can there be 
the least analogy between the two cases? The "seven times" of the Babylonian 
king were seven times of humiliation, and humiliation alone. The suffering 
monarch cannot be a type of the suffering Church; and still less can his "seven 
times" of deepest humiliation, when all power and glory was taken from him, be a 
type of the "seven times" of the "world-power," when that "world-power" was to 
concentrate in itself all the glory and grandeur of the earth. This is one fatal 
objection to this theory. Then let the reader only look at the following sentence 
from the work under consideration, and compare it with historical fact, and he 
will see still more how unfounded the theory is: "It follows undeniably," says the 
author, "that as the Church is to be tyrannised over by the idolatrous power 
throughout the whole of the seven times, she will be oppressed during the first 
half of the 'seven times,' by idolatry in the form of Paganism, and during the last 
half by idolatry in the form of Popery." Now, the first half, or 1260 years, during 
which the Church was to be oppressed by Pagan idolatry, ran out exactly, it is 


said, in AD 530 or 532; when suddenly Justinian changed the scene, and brought 
the new oppressor on the stage. But I ask where was the "world-power" to be 
found up to 530, maintaining "idolatry in the form of Paganism"! From the time 
of Gratian at least, who, about 376, formally abolished the worship of the gods, 
and confiscated their revenues, where was there any such Pagan power to 
persecute? There is certainly a very considerable interval between 376 and 532. 
The necessities of the theory require that Paganism, and that avowed Paganism, 
be it observed, shall be persecuting the Church straight away till 532; but for 156 
years there was no such thing as a Pagan "world-power" in existence to persecute 
the Church. "The legs of the lame," says Solomon, "are not equal"; and if the 
1260 years of Pagan persecution lack no less that 156 years of the predicted 
period, surely it must be manifest that the theory halts very much on one side at 
least. But I ask, do the facts agree with the theory, even in regard to the running 
out of the second 1260 years in 1792, at the period of the French Revolution? If 
the 1260 years of Papal oppression terminated then, and if then the Ancient of 
days came to begin the final judgment on the beast, He came also to do something 
else. This will appear from the language of Daniel 7:21, 22: "I beheld, and the 
same horn made war with the saints, and prevailed against them; until the Ancient 
of days came, and judgment was given to the saints of the Most High; and the 
time came that the saints possessed the kingdom." This language implies that the 
judgment on the little horn, and the putting of the saints in possession "of the 
kingdom" are contemporaneous events. Long has the rule of the kingdoms of this 
world been in the hands of worldly men, that knew not God nor obeyed Him; but 
now, when He to whom the kingdom belongs comes to inflict judgment on His 
enemies, He comes also to transfer the rule of the kingdoms of this world from the 
hands of those who have abused it, into the hand of those that fear God and 
govern their public conduct by His revealed will. This is evidently the meaning of 
the Divine statement. Now, on the supposition that 1792 was the predicted period 
of the coming of the Ancient of days, it follows that, ever since, the principles of 
God's Word must have been leavening the governments of Europe more and 
more, and good and holy men, of the spirit of Daniel and Nehemiah, must have 
been advanced to the high places of power. But has it been so in point of fact? Is 
there one nation in all Europe that acts on Scriptural principles at this day? Does 
Britain itself do so? Why, it is notorious that it was just three years after the reign 
of righteousness, according to this theory, must have commenced that that 
unprincipled policy began that has left hardly a shred of appearance of respect for 
the honour of the 'Prince of the Kings of the earth" in the public rule of this 
nation. It was in 1795 that Pitt, and the British Parliament, passed the Act for the 
erecting of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, which formed the 
beginning of a course that, year by year, has lifted the Man of Sin into a position 
of power in this land, that threatens, if Divine mercy do not miraculously 
interfere, to bring us speedily back again under complete thraldom to Antichrist. 
Yet, according to the theory of The Great Exodus, the very opposite of this ought 
to have been the case. 

But to this only I call the reader's attention, that even on the theory of Dr. Wylie himself, the 
witnesses of Christ could not possibly have finished their testimony before the Decree of the 


Immaculate Conception came forth. The theory of Dr. Wylie, and those who take the same 
general view as he, is, that the "finishing of the testimony," means "completing the elements" of 
the testimony, bearing a full and complete testimony against the errors of Rome. Dr. Wylie 
himself admits that "the dogma of the 'Immaculate Conception' [which was given forth only 
during the last few years] declares Mary truly 'divine,' and places her upon the altars of Rome as 
practically the sole and supreme object of worship" (The Great Exodus). This was NEVER done 
before, and therefore the errors and blasphemies of Rome were not complete until that decree 
had gone forth, if even then. Now, if the corruption and blasphemy of Rome were "incomplete" 
up to our own day, and if they have risen to a height which was never witnessed before, as all 
men instinctively felt and declared, when that decree was issued, how could the testimony of the 
witnesses be "complete" before Luther's day! It is nothing to say that the principle and the germ 
of this decree were in operation long before. The same thing may be said of all the leading errors 
of Rome long before Luther's day. They were all in essence and substance very broadly 
developed, from near the time when Gregory the Great commanded the image of the Virgin to be 
carried forth in the processions that supplicated the Most High to remove the pestilence from 
Rome, when it was committing such havoc among its citizens. But that does in no wise prove 
that they were "complete," or that the witnesses of Christ could then "finish their testimony" by 
bearing a full and "complete testimony" against the errors and corruptions of the Papacy. I 
submit this view of the matter to every intelligent reader for his prayerful consideration. If we 
have not "understanding of the times," it is vain to expect that we "shall know what Israel ought 
to do." If we are saying "Peace and safety," when trouble is at hand, or underrating the nature of 
that trouble, we cannot be prepared for the grand struggle when that struggle shall come. 

Section V 

The Name of the Beast, the Number of His Name - 

The Invisible Head of the Papacy 

Dagon and the Pope being now identified, this brings us naturally and easily to the long- sought 
name and number of the beast, and confirms, by entirely new evidence, the old Protestant view 
of the subject. The name "Lateinos" has been generally accepted by Protestant writers, as having 
many elements of probability to recommend it. But yet there has been always found a certain 
deficiency, and it has been felt that something was wanting to put it beyond all possibility of 
doubt. Now, looking at the subject from the Babylonian point of view, we shall find both the 
name and number of the beast brought home to us in such a way as leaves nothing to be desired 
on the point of evidence. Osiris, or Nimrod, whom the Pope represents, was called by many 
different titles, and therefore, as Wilkinson remarks, he was much h the same position as his 
wife, who was called "Myrionymus," the goddess with "ten thousand names." Among these 
innumerable names, how shall we ascertain the name at which the Spirit of God points in the 
enigmatical language that speaks of the name of the beast, and the number of his name? If we 
know the Apocalyptic name of the system, that will lead us to the name of the head of the 
system. The name of the system is "Mystery" (Rev 17:5). Here, then, we have the key that at 
once unlocks the enigma. We have now only to inquire what was the name by which Nimrod 
was known as the god of the Chaldean Masteries. That name, as we have seen, was Saturn. 
Saturn and Mystery are both Chaldean words, and they are correlative terms. As Mystery 
signifies the Hidden system, so Saturn signifies the Hidden god. * 


* In the Litany of the Mass, the worshippers are taught thus to pray: "God Hidden, 
and my Saviour, have mercy upon us." (M'GAVIN'S Protestant) Whence can this 
invocation of the "God Hidden" have come, but from the ancient worship of 
Saturn, the "Hidden God"? As the Papacy has canonised the Babylonian god by 
the name of St. Dionysius, and St. Bacchus, the "martyr," so by this very name of 
"Satur" is he also enrolled in the calendar; for March 29th is the festival of "St. 
Satur," the martyr. (CHAMBER'S Book of Days) 

To those who were initiated the god was revealed; to all else he was hidden. Now, the name 
Saturn in Chaldee is pronounced Satur; but, as every Chaldee scholar knows, consists only of 
four letters, thus--Stur. This name contains exactly the Apocalyptic number 666:-- 

S = 060 
T = 400 
U = 006 
R = 200 

If the Pope is, as we have seen, the legitimate representative of Saturn, the number of the Pope, 
as head of the Mystery of Iniquity, is just 666. But still further it turns out, as shown above, that 
the original name of Rome itself was Saturnia, "the city of Saturn." This is vouched alike by 
Ovid, by Pliny, and by Aurelius Victor. Thus, then, the Pope has a double claim to the name and 
number of the beast. He is the only legitimate representative of the original Saturn at this day in 
existence, and he reigns in the very city of the seven hills where the Roman Saturn formerly 
reigned; and, from his residence in which, the whole of Italy was "long after called by his name," 
being commonly named "the Saturnian land." But what bearing, it may be said, has this upon the 
name Lateinos, which is commonly believed to be the "name of the beast"? Much. It proves that 
the common opinion is thoroughly well-founded. Saturn and Lateinos are just synonymous, 
having precisely the same meaning, and belonging equally to the same god. The reader cannot 
have forgotten the lines of Virgil, which showed that Lateinos, to whom the Romans or Latin 
race traced back their lineage, was represented with a glory around his head, to show that he was 
a "child of the Sun." Thus, then, it is evident that, in popular opinion, the original Lateinos had 
occupied the very same position as Saturn did in the Mysteries, who was equally worshipped as 
the "offspring of the Sun." Moreover, it is evident that the Romans knew that the name 
"Lateinos" signifies the "Hidden One," for their antiquarians invariably affirm that Latium 
received its name from Saturn "lying hid" there. On etymological grounds, then, even on the 
testimony of the Romans, Lateinos is equivalent to the "Hidden One"; that is, to Saturn, the "god 
of Mystery." * 

* Latium Latinus (the Roman form of the Greek Lateinos), and Lateo, "to lie hid," 
all alike come from the Chaldee "Lat," which has the same meaning. The name 
"lat," or the hidden one, had evidently been given, as well as Saturn, to the great 
Babylonian god. This is evident from the name of the fish Latus, which was 
worshipped along with the Egyptian Minerva, in the city of Latopolis in Egypt, 
now Esneh (WILKINSON), that fish Latus evidently just being another name for 
the fish-god Dagon. We have seen that Ichthys, or the Fish, was one of the names 
of Bacchus; and the Assyrian goddess Atergatis, with her son Ichthys is said to 
have been cast into the lake of Ascalon. That the sun- god Apollo had been known 
under the name of Lat, may be inferred from the Greek name of his mother- wife 
Leto, or in Doric, Lato, which is just the feminine of Lat. The Roman name 


Latona confirms this, for it signifies "The lamenter of Lat," as Bellona signifies 
"The lamenter of Bel." The Indian god Siva, who, as we have seen, is sometimes 
represented as a child at the breast of its mother, and has the same bloody 
character as Moloch, or the Roman Saturn, is called by this very name, as may be 
seen from the following verse made in reference to the image found in his 
celebrated temple at Somnaut: 

"This image grim, whose name was LAUT, 

Bold Mahmoud found when he took Sumnaut." 

BORROWS Gypsies in Spain, or Zincali 

As Lat was used as a synonym for Saturn, there can be little doubt that Latinus 
was used in the same sense. 

The deified kings were called after the gods from whom they professed to spring, 
and not after their territories. The same, we may be sure, was the case with 

While Saturn, therefore, is the name of the beast, and contains the mystic number, Lateinos, 
which contains the same number, is just as peculiar and distinctive an appellation of the same 
beast. The Pope, then, as the head of the beast, is equally Lateinos or Saturn, that is, the head of 
the Babylonian "Mystery." When, therefore, the Pope requires all his services to be performed in 
the 'Latin tongue," that is as much as to say that they must be performed in the language of 
"Mystery"; when he calls his Church the Latin Church, that is equivalent to a declaration that it is 
the Church of "Mystery." Thus, by this very name of the Pope's own choosing, he has with his 
own hands written upon the very forehead of his apostate communion its divine Apocalyptic 
designation, "MYSTERY--Babylon the great." Thus, also, by a process of the purest induction, 
we have been led on from step to step, till we find the mystic number 666 unmistakably and 
"indelibly marked" on his own forehead, and that he who has his seat on the seven hills of Rome 
has exclusive and indefeasible claims to be regarded as the Visible head of the beast. 

The reader, however, who has carefully considered the language that speaks of the name and 
number of the Apocalyptic beast, must have observed that, in the terms that describe that name 
and number, there is still an enigma that ought not to be overlooked. The words are these: "Let 
him that hath understanding count the number of the beast- -for it is the number of a man" (Rev 
13:18). What means the saying, that the "number of the beast is the number of a man"? Does it 
merely mean that he has been called by a name that has been borne by some individual man 
before? This is the sense in which the words have been generally understood. But surely this 
would be nothing very distinctive --nothing that might not equally apply to innumerable names. 
But view this language in connection with the ascertained facts of the case, and what a Divine 
light at once beams from the expression. Saturn, (he hidden god,--the god of the Mysteries, 
whom the Pope represents, whose secrets were revealed only to the initiated,- -was identical with 
Janus, who was publicly known to all Rome, to the uninitiated and initiated alike, as the grand 
Mediator, the opener and the shutter, who had the key of the invisible world. Now, what means 
the name Janus? That name, as Cornificius in Macrobius shows, was properly Eanus; and in 
ancient Chaldee, E-anush signifies "the Man." By that very name was the Babylonian beast from 
the sea called, when it first made its appearance. * 

* The name, as given in Greek by Berosus, is 0-annes; but this is just the very 
way we might expect "He-anesth," "the man," to appear in Greek. He-siri, in 


Greek, becomes Osiris; and He-sarsiphon, Osarsiphon; and, in like manner, He- 
anesh naturally becomes Oannes. In the sense of a "Man-god," the name Oannes 
is taken by Barker (Lares and Penates). We find the conversion of the H' into O' 
among our own immediate neighbours, the Irish; what is now O'Brien and 
O'Connell was originally H'Brien and H'Connell (Sketches of Irish History). 

The name Banush, or "the Man," was applied to the Babylonian Messiah, as identifying him 
with the promised seed of the Woman. The name of "the Man," as applied to a god, was intended 
to designate him as the "god-man." We have seen that in India the Hindoo Shasters bear witness, 
that in order to enable the gods to overcome their enemies, it was needful that the Sun, the 
supreme divinity, should be incarnate, and born of a Woman The classical nations had a legend 
of precisely the same nature. "There was a current tradition in heaven," says Apollodorus, "that 
the giants could never be conquered except by the help of a man." That man, who was believed 
to have conquered the adversaries of the gods, was Janus, the god- man. In consequence of his 
assumed character and exploits, Janus was invested with high powers, made the keeper of the 
gates of heaven, and arbiter of men's eternal destinies. Of this Janus, this Babylonian "man," the 
Pope, as we have seen, is the legitimate representative; his key, therefore, he bears, with that of 
Cybele, his mother- wife; and to all his blasphemous pretensions he at this hour lays claim. The 
very fact, then, that the Pope founds his claim to universal homage on the possession of the keys 
of heaven, and that in a sense which empowers him, in defiance of every principle of 
Christianity, to open and shut the gates of glory, according to his mere sovereign will and 
pleasure, is a striking and additional proof that he is that head of the beast from the sea, whose 
number, as identified with Janus, is the number of a man, and amounts exactly to 666. 

But there is something further still in the name of Janus or Eanus, not to be passed over. Janus, 
while manifestly worshipped as the Messiah or god- man, was also celebrated as "Principium 
Decorum," the source and fountain of all the Pagan gods. We have already in this character 
traced him backward through Cush to Noah; but to make out his claim to this high character, in 
its proper completeness, he must be traced even further still. The Pagans knew, and could not but 
know, at the time the Mysteries were concocted, in the days of Shem and his brethren, who, 
through the Flood, had passed from the old world to the new, the whole story of Adam, and 
therefore it was necessary, if a deification of mankind there was to be, that his pre-eminent 
dignity, as the human "Father of gods and men," should not be ignored. Nor was it. The 
Mysteries were full of what he did, and what befel him; and the name E-anush, or, as it appeared 
in the Egyptian form, Ph'anesh, "The man," was only another name for that of our great 
progenitor. The name of Adam in the Hebrew of Genesis almost always occurs with the article 
before it, implying "The Adam," or "The man." There is this difference, however-- "The Adam" 
refers to man unfallen, E-anush, "The man," to "fallen man." E-anush, then, as "Principium 
decorum," "The fountain and father of the gods," is "FALLEN Adam." * 

* Anesh properly signifies only the weakness or frailty of fallen humanity; but 
any one who consults OVID, Fashti, as to the character of Janus, will see that 
when E-anush was deified, it was not simply as Fallen man with his weakness, but 
Fallen man with his corruption. 

The principle of Pagan idolatry went directly to exalt fallen humanity, to consecrate its lusts, to 
give men license to live after the flesh, and yet, after such a life, to make them sure of eternal 
felicity. E-anus, the "fallen man," was set up as the human Head of this system of corruption-- 
this "Mystery of Iniquity." Now, from this we come to see the real meaning of the name, applied 


to the divinity commonly worshipped in Phrygia along with Cybele in the very same character as 
this same Janus, who was at once the Father of the gods, and the Mediatorial divinity. That name 
was Atys, or Attis, or Attes, * and the meaning will evidently appear from the meaning of the 
well-known Greek word Ate, which signifies "error of sin," and is obviously derived from the 
Chaldean Hata, "to sin." 

* SMITH'S Classical Dictionary, "Atys." The identification of Attes with 
Bacchus or Adonis, who was at once the Father of the gods, and the Mediator, is 
proved from divers considerations. 1. While it is certain that the favourite god of 
the Phrygian Cybele was Attes, whence he was called "Cybelius Attes," from 
Strabo, we learn that the divinity worshipped along with Cybele in Phrygia, was 
called by the very name of Dionusos or Bacchus. 2. Attes was represented in the 
very same way as Bacchus. In Bryant there is an inscription to him along with the 
Idaean goddess, that is Cybele, under the name of "Attis the Minotaur" (Mythol.). 
Bacchus was bull- horned; it is well known that the Minotaur, in like manner, was 
half- man, half-bull. 3. He was represented in the exoteric story, as perishing in the 
same way as Adonis by a wild boar (PAUSAN). 4. In the rites of Magna Mater or 
Cybele, the priests invoked him as the "Deus propitius, Deus sanctus," "the 
merciful God, the holy God" (ARNOBIUS in Maxima Biblioth. Patrum), the very 
character which Bacchus or Adonis sustained as the mediatorial god. 

Atys or Attes, formed from the same verb, and in a similar way, signifies "The Sinner." The 
reader will remember that Rhea or Cybele was worshipped in Phrygia under the name of Idaia 
Mater, "The mother of knowledge," and that she bore in her hand, as her symbol, the 
pomegranate, which we have seen reason to conclude to have been in Pagan estimation the fruit 
of the "forbidden tree." Who, then, so likely to have been the contemplar divinity of that "Mother 
of knowledge" as Attes, "The sinner," even her own husband, whom she induced to share with 
her in her sin, and partake of her fatal knowledge, and who thereby became in true and proper 
sense, "The man of sin,"-- "the man by whom sin entered the world, and death by sin, and so 
death passed upon all, because all have sinned." * 

* The whole story of Attes can be proved in detail to be the story of the Fall. 
Suffice it here only to state that, even on the surface, this sin was said to be 
connected with undue love for "a nymph, whose fate depended on a tree" (OVID, 
Fasti). The love of Attes for this nymph was in one aspect an offence to Cybele, 
but, in another, it was the love of Cybele herself; for Cybele has two distinct 
fundamental characters- -that of the Holy Spirit, and also that of our mother Eve. 
"The nymph whose fate depended on a tree" was evidently Rhea, the mother of 

Now to Attes, this "Man of sin," after passing through those sorrows and sufferings, which his 
worshippers yearly commemorated, the distinguishing characteristics and glories of the Messiah 
were given. He was identified with the sun, * the only god; he was identified with Adonis; and to 
him as thus identified, the language of the Sixteenth Psalm, predicting the triumph of our Saviour 
Christ over death and the grave, was in all its greatness applied: "Thou wilt not leave my soul in 
hell, nor suffer thine Holy One to see corruption." 


BRYANT. The ground of the Identification of Attis with the sun evidently was, 
that as Hata signifies to sin, so Hatah, which signifies to burn, is in pronunciation 
nearly the same. 16 

Attes, the Sinner 

We have seen that the name Pan signifies "to turn aside," and have concluded that as it is a synonym for Hata, "to 
sin," the proper generic meaning of which is "to turn aside from the straight line," that name was the name of our 
first parent, Adam. One of the names of Eve, as the primeval goddess, worshipped in ancient Babylon, while it gives 
confirmation to this conclusion, elucidates also another classical myth in a somewhat unexpected way. The name of 
that primeval goddess, as given by Berosus, is Thalatth, which, as we have seen, signifies "the rib." Adam's name, as 
her husband, would be "Baal-Thalatth," "Husband of the rib"; for Baal signifies Lord in the sense frequently of 
"Husband." But "Baal-Thalatth," according to a peculiar Hebrew idiom already noticed, signifies also "He that 
halted or went sideways." * 

* The Chaldee Thalatth, "a rib" or a "side," comes from the verb Thalaa, the Chaldee form of Tzalaa, which signifies "to 
turn aside," "to halt," "to sidle," or "to walk sideways." 

This is the remote origin of Vulcan's lameness; for Vulcan, as the "Father of the gods," needed to be identified with 
Adam, as well as the other "fathers of the gods," to whom we have already traced him. Now Adam, in consequence 
of his sin and departure from the straight line of duty, was, all his life after, in a double sense "Baal-Thalatth," not 
only the "Husband of the rib," but "The man that halted or walked sideways." In memory of this turning aside, no 
doubt it was that the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18:26) "limped at the altar," when supplicating their god to hear them 
(for that is the exact meaning in the original of the word rendered " leaped" —see, KITTO's Bib. Cyclop), and that the 
Druidic priests went sideways in performing some of their sacred rites, as appears from the following passage of 
Davies: "The dance is performed with solemn festivity about the lakes, round which and the sanctuary the priests 
move sideways, whilst the sanctuary is earnestly invoking the gliding king, before whom the fair one retreats upon 
the veil that covers the huge stones" (Druids). This Davies regards as connected with the story of Jupiter, the father 
of the gods, violating his own daughter in the form of a serpent. Now, let the reader look at what is on the breast of 
the Ephesian Diana, as the Mother of the gods, and he will see a reference to her share in the same act of going 
aside; for there is the crab, and how does a crab go but sideways! This, then, shows the meaning of another of the 
signs of the Zodiac. Cancer commemorates the fatal turning aside of our first parent from the paths of righteousness, 
when the covenant of Eden was broken. 

The Pagans knew that this turning aside or going sideways, implied death-the death of the soul— ("In the day thou 
eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die"); and, therefore, while at the spring festival of Cybele and Attes, there were 
great lamentations for the death of Attes, so on the Hilaria or rejoicing festival of the 25th of March-that is, Lady- 
day, the last day of the festival-the mourning was turned into joy, "on occasion of the dead god being restored to 
life again" (DUPUIS, Origine de tous les Cultes). If Attes was he that by "his turning aside" brought sin and death 
into the world, what could the life be to which he was so speedily restored, but just that new and divine life which 
enters every soul when it is " born again," and so "passes from death unto life." When the promise was given that the 
seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head, and Adam grasped it by faith, that, there can be no doubt, was 
evidence that the divine life was restored, and that he was born again. And thus do the very Mysteries of Attes, 
which were guarded with special jealousy, and the secret meaning of which Pausanias declares that he found it 
impossible, notwithstanding all his efforts to discover (Achaica), bear their distinct testimony, when once the 
meaning of the name of Attes is deciphered, to the knowledge which paganism itself had of the real nature of the 
Fall, and of the essential character of that death, which was threatened in the primeval covenant. 

This new birth of Attes laid the foundation for his being represented as a little child, and so being identified with 
Adonis, who, though he died a full-grown man, was represented in that very way. In the Eleusinian Mysteries, that 
commemorated the rape of Proserpine, that is, the seduction of Eve, the lamented god, or Bacchus, was represented 
as a babe, at the breast of the great Mother, who by Sophocles is called Deo (Antigone). As Deo or Demete, applied 
to the Great Mother, is evidently just another form of Idaia Mater, "The Mother of Knowledge" (the verb "to know" 
being either Daa or Idaa), this little child, in one of his aspects, was no doubt the same as Attes, and thus also 
Deoius, as his name is given. The Hilaria, or rejoicing festival of the 25th of March, or Lady-day, owed its gladness 
to the Annunciation of a birth yet to come, even the birth of the woman's seed; but, at the same time, the joy of that 


It is sufficiently known that the first part of this statement was applied to Adonis; for the annual 
weeping of the women for Tammuz was speedily turned into rejoicings, on account of his fabled 
return from Hades, or the infernal regions. But it is not so well known that Paganism applied to 
its mediatorial god the predicted incorruption of the body of the Messiah. But that this was the 
fact, we learn from the distinct testimony of Pausanias. "Agdistis," that is Cybele, says he, 
"obtained from Jupiter, that no part of the body of Attes should either become putrid or waste 
away." Thus did Paganism apply to Attes "the sinner," the incommunicable honour of Christ, 
who came to "save His people from their sins"--as contained in the Divine language uttered by 
the "sweet psalmist of Israel," a thousand years before the Christian era. If, therefore, the Pope 
occupies, as we have seen, the very place of Janus "the man," how clear is it, that he equally 
occupies the place of Attes, "the sinner," and then how striking in this point of view the name 
"Man of sin," as divinely given by prophecy (2 Thess 2:3) to him who was to be the head of the 
Christian apostacy, and who was to concentrate in that apostacy all the corruption of Babylonian 

The Pope is thus on every ground demonstrated to be the visible head of the beast. But the beast 
has not only a visible, but an invisible head that governs it. That invisible head is none other than 
Satan, the head of the first grand apostacy that began in heaven itself. This is put beyond doubt 
by the language of Revelation 13:4 "And they worshipped the Dragon which gave power unto 
the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" This language 
shows that the worship of the dragon is commensurate with the worship of the beast. That the 
dragon is primarily Satan, the arch-fiend himself, is plain from the statement of the previous 
chapter (Rev 12:9) "And the Dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, 
which deceiveth the whole world." If, then, the Pope be, as we have seen, the visible head of the 
beast, the adherents of Rome, in worshipping the Pope, of necessity worship also the Devil. With 
the Divine statement before us, there is no possibility of escaping from this. And this is exactly 
what we might expect on other grounds. Let it be remembered that the Pope, as the head of the 
Mystery of Iniquity, is "the son of perdition," Iscariot, the false apostle, the traitor. Now, it is 
expressly stated, that before Judas committed his treason, "Satan," the prince of the Devils, 
"entered into him," took complete and entire possession of him. From analogy, we may expect 
the same to have been the case here. Before the Pope could even conceive such a scheme of 
complicated treachery to the cause of his Lord, as has been proved against him, before he could 
be qualified for successfully carrying that treacherous scheme into effect, Satan himself must 
enter into him. The Mystery of Iniquity was to practise and prosper according "to the working"-- 
i.e., literally, "according to the energy or mighty power of Satan" (2 Thess 2:9). * 

* The very term "energy" here employed, is the term continually used in the 
Chaldean books, describing the inspiration coming from the gods and demons to 
their worshippers. (TAYLOR'S Jamblichus) 

Therefore Satan himself, and not any subordinate spirit of hell, must preside over the whole vast 
system of consecrated wickedness; he must personally take possession of him who is its visible 
head, that the system may be guided by his diabolical subtlety, and "energised" by his super- 
human power. Keeping this in view, we see at once how it is that, when the followers of the Pope 
worship the beast, they worship also the "dragon that gave power to the beast." 

festival was enhanced by the immediate new birth that very day of Attes, "The sinner," or Adam, who, in 
consequence of his breach of the covenant, had become dead in "trespasses and sins." 


Thus, altogether independent of historical evidence on this point, we are brought to the 
irresistible conclusion that the worship of Rome is one vast system of Devil-worship. If it be 
once admitted that the Pope is the head of the beast from the sea, we are bound, on the mere 
testimony of God, without any other evidence whatever, to receive this as a fact, that, 
consciously or unconsciously, those who worship the Pope are actually worshipping the Devil. 
But, in truth, we have historical evidence, and that of a very remarkable kind, that the Pope, as 
head of the Chaldean Mysteries, is as directly the representative of Satan, as he is of the false 
Messiah of Babylon. It was long ago noticed by Irenaeus, about the end of the second century, 
that the name Teitan contained the Mystic number 666; and he gave it as his opinion that Teitan 
was "by far the most probable name" of the beast from the sea. * 

* IRENAEUS. Though the name Teitan was originally derived from Chaldee, yet 
it became thoroughly naturalised in the Greek language. Therefore, to give the 
more abundant evidence on this important subject, the Spirit of God seems to 
have ordered it, that the number of Teitan should be found according to the Greek 
computation, while that of Satur is found by the Chaldee. 

The grounds of his opinion, as stated by him, do not carry much weight; but the opinion itself he 
may have derived from others who had better and more valid reasons for their belief on this 
subject. Now, on inquiry, it will actually be found, that while Saturn was the name of the visible 
head, Teitan was the name of the invisible head of the beast. Teitan is just the Chaldean form of 
Sheitan, * the very name by which Satan has been called from time immemorial by the Devil- 
worshippers of Kurdistan; and from Armenia or Kurdistan, this Devil-worship embodied in the 
Chaldean Mysteries came westward to Asia Minor, and thence to Etruria and Rome. 

* The learned reader has no need of examples in proof of this frequent Chaldean 
transformation of the Sh or S into T; but for the common reader, the following 
may be adduced: Hebrew, Shekel, to weigh, becomes Tekel in Chaldee; Hebrew, 
Shabar, to break- -Chaldee, Tabar; Hebrew, Seraphim- -Chaldee, Teraphim, the 
Babylonian counterfeit of the Divine Cherubim or Seraphim; Hebrew, Asar, to be 
rich- -Chaldee, Atar; Hebrew, Shani, second--Chaldee, Tanin, &c. 

That Teitan was actually known by the classic nations of antiquity to be Satan, or the spirit of 
wickedness, and originator of moral evil, we have the following proofs: The history of Teitan 
and his brethren, as given in Homer and Hesiod, the two earliest of all the Greek writers, 
although later legends are obviously mixed up with it, is evidently the exact counterpart of the 
Scriptural account of Satan and his angels. Homer says, that "all the gods of Tartarus," or Hell, 
"were called Teitans." Hesiod tells us how these Teitans, or "gods of hell," came to have their 
dwelling there. The chief of them having committed a certain act of wickedness against his 
father, the supreme god of heaven, with the sympathy of many others of the "sons of heaven," 
that father "called them all by an opprobrious name, Teitans," pronounced a curse upon them, 
and then, in consequence of that curse, they were "cast down to hell," and "bound in chains of 
darkness" in the abyss. While this is the earliest account of Teitan and his followers among the 
Greeks, we find that, in the Chaldean system, Teitan was just a synonym for Typhon, the 
malignant Serpent or Dragon, who was universally regarded as the Devil, or author of all 
wickedness. It was Typhon, according to the Pagan version of the story, that killed Tammuz, and 
cut him in pieces; but Lactantius, who was thoroughly acquainted with the subject, upbraids his 
Pagan countrymen for "worshipping a child torn in pieces by the Teitans." It is undeniable, then, 
that Teitan, in Pagan belief, was identical with the Dragon, or Satan. * 


* We have seen that Shem was the actual slayer of Tarnmuz. As the grand 
adversary of the Pagan Messiah, those who hated him for his deed called him for 
that very deed by the name of the Grand Adversary of all, Typhon, or the Devil. 
"If they called the Master of the house Beelzebub," no wonder that his servant 
was called by a similar name. 

In the Mysteries, as formerly hinted, an important change took place as soon as the way was 
paved for it. First, Tammuz was worshipped as the bruiser of the serpent's head, meaning thereby 
that he was the appointed destroyer of Satan's kingdom. Then the dragon himself, or Satan, came 
to receive a certain measure of worship, to "console him," as the Pagans said, "for the loss of his 
power," and to prevent him from hurting them; and last of all the dragon, or Teitan or Satan, 
became the supreme object of worship, the Titania, or rites of Teitan, occupying a prominent 
place in the Egyptian Mysteries, and also in those of Greece. How vitally important was the 
place that these rites of Teitan or Satan occupied, may be judged of from the fact that Pluto, the 
god of Hell (who, in his ultimate character, was just the grand Adversary), was looked up to with 
awe and dread as the great god on whom the destinies of mankind in the eternal world did mainly 
depend; for it was said that to Pluto belonged "to purify souls after death." Purgatory having 
been in Paganism, as it is in Popery, the grand hinge of priestcraft and superstition, what a power 
did this opinion attribute to the "god of Hell"! No wonder that the serpent, the Devil's grand 
instrument in seducing mankind, was in all the earth worshipped with such extraordinary 
reverence, it being laid down in the Octateuch of Ostanes, that "serpents were the supreme of all 
gods and the princes of the Universe." No wonder that it came at last to be firmly believed that 
the Messiah, on whom the hopes of the world depended, was Himself the "seed of the serpent"! 
This was manifestly the case in Greece; for the current story there came to be, that the first 
Bacchus was brought forth in consequence of a connexion on the part of his mother with the 
father of the gods, in the form of a "speckled snake." * 

* OVID, Metam. So deeply was the idea of "the seed of the serpent" being the 
great World- king imprinted on the Pagan mind, that when a man set up to be a 
god upon earth, it was held essential to establish his title to that character, that he 
prove himself to be the "serpent's seed." Thus, when Alexander the Great claimed 
divine honours, it is well known that his mother Olympias, declared that he was 
not sprung from King Philip, her husband, but from Jupiter, in the form of a 
serpent. In like manner, says the authoress of Rome in the 19th Century, the 
Roman emperor, "Augustus, pretended that he was the son of Apollo, and that the 
god had assumed the form of a serpent for the purpose of giving him birth." 

That "father of the gods" was manifestly "the god of hell"; for Proserpine, the mother of 
Bacchus, that miraculously conceived and brought forth the wondrous child--whose rape by 
Pluto occupied such a place in the Mysteries--was worshipped as the wife of the god of Hell, as 
we have already seen, under the name of the "Holy Virgin." The story of the seduction of Eve * 
by the serpent is plainly imported into this legend, as Julius Firmicus and the early Christian 
apologists did with great force cast in the teeth of the Pagans of their day; but very different is 
the colouring given to it in the Pagan legend from that which it has in the Divine Word. 

* We find that Semele, the mother of the Grecian Bacchus, had been identified 
with Eve; for the name of Eve had been given to her, as Photius tells us that 
"Pherecydes called Semele, Hue." Hue is just the Hebrew name for Eve, without 
the points. 


Thus the grand Thimblerigger, by dexterously shifting the peas, through means of men who 
began with great professions of abhorrence of his character, got himself almost everywhere 
recognised as in very deed "the god of this world." So deep and so strong was the hold that Satan 
had contrived to get of the ancient world in this character, that even when Christianity had been 
proclaimed to man, and the true light had shone from Heaven, the very doctrine we have been 
considering raised its head among the professed disciples of Christ. Those who held this doctrine 
were cal